'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/

[blue-duncan]

"Back to work!"

Man, you know how to ruin a good day.

[bornacatholic]

We trust the scripture. You trust the church.

*Actually, without you realising it, YOU trust the Church too. She is the SOLE reason you have the New Testament.

As for we Catholics, we don't shackle ourselves to a 16th century heresy we have

Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, the Triune God's Triumphant Threefold Treatise on Truth

[kosta50]

I find it inescapable that the pedestal [Mary] has been placed upon was only built later, after the Apostles were all gone. The Apostles knew the facts better than their successors, and yet how did they "treat" her in scriptures?

+Ignatius seems to hold her pretty high, FK, and he was a disciple of the Apostles.

The focus of the New Testament is on Christ. Everyone else, including His Mother, pales in comparison. The Gospels were about Christ and His ministry.

The Apostles were keenly aware that any distraction from that would lead the nascent church into error. The focus of their ministry was to tell the world about Christ.

They did not go into the elaborate philosophical teachings of the Holy Trinity or Christ's duality. They simply did what Christ commanded them to do: preach by word of mouth or epistle the Good News and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and and the Holy Spirit because their time was short and their taks was enormous, if not impossible.

There was simply no point or room to speak of Mary before the world embraced Christ, as it would distract and deter a process that was dangerous, even deadly, and hard-pressed. They had precious little time to save the Church from certain extinction in Israel and to plant its seeds in the pagan world and assure that the see would grow when they are gone.

The elaboration of important doctrines (Holy Trinity, Christology, Theotokos) did not come about until heresies began to take hold, and – more importantly – until Christianity's survival in the hostile world (both Israel and Rome) was no longer in question. The First Ecumenical Council took place when the Church was no longer persecuted.

In the first 1,000 years of the Church, the only dogma regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos, the God-bearer. That is the only dogma regarding Mary in the Orthodox Church to this day.

Veneration of Mary developed in the East and the West spontaneously, and not as a result of dogma. She is our highest Saint and role model.

[xzins]

We've gone through this before.

The church didn't MAKE the scriptures the product of the Apostles; it VERIFIED that they were the product of the Apostles.

Once certified as having historical evidence of connection to the Apostles, they HAD to be accepted as the authority of the Apostles over the church.

[Blogger]

You know something Kolo. Here is something which I think in these discussions is a misunderstanding from some Catholic and orthodox folks. There seems to be a misunderstanding that by Sola Scriptura, we won't listen to any other sources and what they say. This isn't true. We have teachers. We have debates. We even look at Creeds. The key is, what is said, must be found and supported by Scripture in its full context. If it is extra-biblical revelation that clearly contradicts Scripture (i.e., Benny Hinn saying that there are 9 members of the trinity since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL have bodies souls and spirits) it is rejected. If is a formulation that makes a clearly SCRIPTURAL concept more concise, such as defining whom the Son is or what the Trinity is, we do not reject such knowledge for it is backed up and taught in Scripture. I don't believe that my fellow Sola Scripturists would disagree with that statement. Popes and Bishops where they were speaking truth which was supported by and taught in Scripture are not rejected outright any more than my Pastor or a Sunday School teacher would be rejected for speaking Biblical truth. Its on issues which we consider unscriptural that we take issue. We believe that the idea that interpretation of Scripture is for an official centralized church body and not for all believers everywhere is unscriptural. We do not believe that new believers can't benefit from being taught. They need to understand things such as looking at Scripture in its context in order to rightly divide the word of truth. But, at some point in time, they should be so well versed in Scriptural truth that such teaching isn't a necessity. It isn't shunned. We all have Pastors. But some of us have grown to be teachers ourselves and are led by the Spirit when we read and apply the Word of God as well. Does that make sense?

[bornacatholic]

says who?

Brother, I don't think you have much of a grasp as how the New Testament came to be

[Kolokotronis]

" In the first 1,000 years of the Church, the only dogma regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos, the God-bearer. That is the only dogma regarding Mary in the Orthodox Church to this day.

Veneration of Mary developed in the East and the West spontaneously, and not as a result of dogma. She is our highest Saint and role model."

Thanks, Kosta!

These are very important points if you want to understand Marian beliefs in Orthodoxy. Things are somewhat different in the Western Church.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "How do we DISTINGUISH the three persons from the one divine nature?"

You don't. The only Hypostasis (Person) that is distinguished for being human and divine is the Son in that within Him subsist two distinguished natures, one corporeal and human and the other one incorporeal and divine.

I am fine with this, and after reading Kolo's post, I may not have been specific enough. Here is what threw me:

[3031] FK: "How do you describe what happened when Jesus prayed? Was He talking to Himself?"

[3031] No. He was praying to God the Father, to the First Person of the Holy Trinity, not to divine nature, just as He was calling on the Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and not on divine nature.

When I read this I thought "Not praying to divine nature? Then what? Was Jesus praying to the Father's UN-divine nature?" I don't think you meant that, but I do not know what you did mean. :) If Jesus in prayer was simply talking to a colleague, then He knew not worship. I don't see how that is possible.

However, here is what you said in 3277: "Our Lord Jesus Christ prayed to the Father in strict obedience to Him in His human nature." Now if I had said something this heretical I would certainly have been drawn and quartered. But, since it was you, and you get away with it, I have sympathy for this statement. :) Nonetheless, I still cannot reconcile the two statements.

But God never leaves us! It is only that Hypostatically God accomplishes different tasks that matter to our salvation.

Forgive me if I have forgotten the Orthodox teaching. I thought you were in agreement with the Roman Catholics that the Holy Spirit abandons any body in a state of "major" (mortal) sin before the next confession, and then re-enters the body upon the completion of penance. It has been a while for me on this subject, so I admit to being a little fuzzy. :) I remember that you don't really get into the concept of "mortal" sin all that much, but I couldn't remember what the view was on when the Spirit indwells and whether He leaves, and then comes back, etc.

I believe Kolokotronis, and others (myself included) have, in the past, given you plenty of patristic literature to ponder and easily answer your inquiries, as the Church understood them all along.

You have both given me many links, including yours here to +John of Damascus , and I am very grateful. Thank you. I'm not so sure I understand everything quite so easily, I'm afraid. :) However, I hope I have clarified where I was coming from.

[Blogger]

But the Bible doesn't teach a hierarchy of Saints. All are the same in Christ.

Off subject, on Ignatius of Antioch, I read the following:
Ignatius, who also called himself Theophorus ("bearer of God"), was most likely a disciple of the Apostle John [1].


Just out of curiousity, what is the difference between Theotokos and theophorus? Just a question. Is one bearing a child and one bearing or carrying His word?

[D-fendr]

I have many non-Calvinist friends. It's really okay that they don't view Scripture the way I do. They have come to Christ and trust in Him alone for their salvation. The latter is essential. The former is not.

I think we disagree a great deal here. My position is that the Tulip God is unrecognizable to Orthodox Christianity - it has more in common with the view of god pre-Torah, pre-covenant, pre-Christ.

Who God is, what man is in relation to God, and what salvation is and means is very important. These teachings define and describe a religion. So this difference and split within Protestantism is extremely significant.

Thanks for your reply...

[bornacatholic]

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html

[Blogger]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying he has more in common with pre-torah, pre-covenant, pre-Christ. I won't have time to answer in full right now as I am at lunch. But, if you could clarify it may help me answer your question better.

[kosta50]

BTW-I was wondering if this meant Mary had imputed righteousness?

I think that is an excellent question, HD. Inasmuch as Bpatism is imputed righteousness, yes. The rest of it is her choice.

[D-fendr]

Essentially what you (and others) deny is that God gives you [faith] to choose Him.

No, not if you read carefully. What I see being denied is that you have the ability to choose at all.

I don't know if this applies to you however, whether you follow the doctrine of, I think the term is, double predestination.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Virgin" is one of those multi-layer words, and every bit of it was/is true of Mary of Nazareth. She was physically intact, she never had relations with a man, she was "pure of heart" meaning she willed one thing: to do the will of God; she was clean in her thoughts, manners, words, habits; she was a pure and wholesome girl. Mary was All That!

Of course there's no moral problem with a girl accidentally rupturing her hymen (and some girls have no hymen), but considering the ritual requirements for anything associated with God in the OT (I mean even sacrifical animals, priestly clothing, furnishings, etc --- anything--- all decribed in detail and called "spotless," "without blemish" and so forth) it would seem unlikely that Mary would have been non-intact in any way.

A fascinating Orthodox book, Mary, the Untrodden Portal, relates a parallelism between Mary and various descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple in the OT, since these are prefigurements of her in whom God chose to dwell. (Most of it harmonious from a Catholic point of view, although the author aggravates me by constantly spotlighting differences between O and C theology --- diffrences which I think are matters of emphasis and not of substance) --

Anyhow, the point being that Mary's physical intactness is another outward sign of he inward dedication to One Alone, and her fulfillment of the OT signs of God's in-dwelling, his Ark of the Covenant and his Temple.

[kosta50]

HD, you are quoting +Paul not the Lord. I said "the Lord never taught anything about bishops being husbands of one wife..." and your Protestant random verse machine is spewing out an irrelevant ecclesiological verse by +Paul. Maybe it's time to get a newer model.

Maybe then you can find a verse where Christ himself says anything about ecclesiology.

[D-fendr]

Here's what I mean by pre-Torah..

Mel Brooks tells the joke: "Religion was invented when man first said: 'We dunno who you are or what you are, but please don't hit us with that lightning!'"

The pre-Torah view was one of capricious god(s) that could, perhaps, be bribed but acted without reason to show favor or destruction at their whim. The God of covenant was a major, major difference in revelation. A God who could be known through a sense of justice and reason, one who gave His word, could enter into agreements, the Decalogue and so on...

The early Mosaic revelation was still of a harsh punishing God, it was incomplete, but not one who punished on a whim, without choice, decision, justice or reason. While incomplete, it was nevertheless a major increase and advance in man's knowledge and relationship to God.

This revelation was continued and increased throughout Judaism and reached fullness in Christ, the Incarnate Word - for God so loved…, the Gospel of God's love if we can but accept and know it.

What I see in predestination is a return to more ancient gods of whim and capriciousness, sans the possibility of even bribery. Re., Brooks story, "We all deserve to fry, thank you for zapping the others but not me." The progression is from whim to covenant to... whim again: God saves whom He will, hardens whom He will..

This foundational underpinning used in predestination describe the characteristics of a god more familiar to mankind before the Torah.

I hope this explains my meaning more fully.

[kosta50]

Is there an interpretation that says that only the OT words of the Lord are pure, but His NT words needed purifying by the Church?

Words and canons are two different things FK. God did not neatly put into a package a full canon for us to use. That was left up to the Church to sort out 23 out of some 200 circulating scrolls purporting tom be the "words" of God.

Even though you portray this Spirit-guided process, the canon was not finalized even after the end of the 4th century (the authenticity of the Book of Revelation of John having been questioned as late as the 8th century in the East), the issue of Apocryphal books, the Epistle of Barnabas (included in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest surviving complete Christian Canon), and so on.

Although I would say that Christ validated OT and NT scripture, He inarguably validated OT scripture. If so, then we know that all the words of the Lord will be preserved

FK, there are so many different versions masquerading as God's word that it is impossible to tell which is which. All three oldest Codices are but 4th and 5th century copies. One of them (the 5th century edition) is quite different from the 4th century ones. KJV, is the best example how a politically-correct Bible managed to be the "official" Bible of western Christendom. It is full of man-made changes to fit the Protestant palate.

Of the OT sources (LXX, DSS, MT) they all differ from each other in words, context and length. How many versions of the OT and NT did God actually deliver FK? Snap out of it!

What strikes me however about your post is that you are suggesting that the Church was Spirit-guided in its canonization of the Bible, because he wanted to preserve the Church, yet when it comes to the Church organization (papacy was well established by the time the Bible was canonized) you dismiss it as man-made.

[HarleyD]

I don't know if this applies to you however, whether you follow the doctrine of, I think the term is, double predestination.

I was reading today in Exodus 31 the following:

1The Lord said to Moses,2“See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah,3and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship,4to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze,5in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft.6And behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. And I have given to all able men ability, that they may make all that I have commanded you:7the tent of meeting, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is on it, and all the furnishings of the tent,8the table and its utensils, and the pure lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense,9and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin and its stand,10and the finely worked garments,* the holy garments for Aaron the priest and the garments of his sons, for their service as priests,11and the anointing oil and the fragrant incense for the Holy Place. According to all that I have commanded you, they shall do.”

There are many Protestants who follows the Orthodox and Catholic's humanistic view of free will, man's ability to choose God and to do "things" for Him. This is a grave error and exactly backwards.

The Lord chooses who He so wills and fills us with abilities to serve Him. There is nothing that we have that we have not received.

[HarleyD]

HD, you are quoting +Paul not the Lord. I said "the Lord never taught anything about bishops being husbands of one wife..."

I thought the position of the Church was that the New Testament was the writing of God. Certainly I'm being told the inspired writings confirms the Truth of the Church and the Church confirms the writings of 1 Timothy. Maybe they should have dumped Timothy. Well, those Church Fathers were only human.