'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/

[bornacatholic]

B-D requested a quote from Augustine. I supplied it..actuallu more than on e:) See, I'm generous

[TomSmedley]

This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man,

As much as I love Augustine, and look forward to shaking his hand in the life to come, this observation strongly illustrates the extent to which his grasp of the earthy realism that permeates the Bible was corrupted by the more ethereal helenistic disdain for the created order. In Augustine's view, those poor benighted Jews were so stupid that they considered marriage to be normative, and singleness as a lamentable condition.

[bornacatholic]

It reveals so much more than that, all of which I gained a sense of way too early on. This need of theirs to pristinate Mary, to pristinate her hymen is at its core, that which is the reason for their pederasty scandal, for their incredible propensity for cruelty, as I and many other catholic kids experienced, most of which stems from their perversion of the sexual impulse in man.

*See, you, as a convert, weren't taught of all this as a kid. Aren't you happy?

Before converting, did you consider just how evil we are? I mean you threw-in with a gang of vicious,cruel, sexual perverts who are obsessed with Mary's purity. Didn't you know the Doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity, formulated at an Ecumenical Council, was but a ploy to trick men into pederasty and homosexuality?

Talk about wishing others glad tidings :)

[bornacatholic]

this observation strongly illustrates the extent to which his grasp of the earthy realism that permeates the Bible was corrupted by the more ethereal helenistic disdain for the created order

*Please quote Augustine on his disdain for Creation.

[blue-duncan]

"At any rate, your claim that the terms used are all the same appears to be, let's say, not true,"

Luk 1:24, 31, 36 the word conceive used is sullambanw (sullambano)

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

Elizabeth: Luke 1:24, "And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,"
Luke 1:36, "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

"In the case of Elizabeth, the term actually means carnal (lustful) conception."

It's the same word, sullambanw (sullambano), used to describe Mary's condition.

[xzins]

Mary & Elizabeth both have the word sullambano used (received text) for their conception. Gennao is the other primary word & it means "become." Its context determines its thrust, IIRC.

In short, if Elizabeth's sullambano gets to mean lust, then so does Mary's. I don't think you want to go there

[blue-duncan]

Matt. 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The statement is clear. The officers of the synagogue, no friend of Jesus and yet familiar with His family, familiar enough to identify the work his father does, his mother's name and his brother's name and that thefamily lives in the same community. They recognize Jesus as;

the carpenter's son,
Mary's son,
brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon,
brother of his sisters.

Then they say that the family "all" is still with them i.e. living among them. An outsider would not use the familiar term "brethren" to refer to Jesus' entourage.

[blue-duncan]

I don't see where we disagree. Mary remained a virgin through the birth of Jesus. To read more into that is conjecture.

[adiaireton8]

I have mixed feelings about not being raised Catholic. Part of me regrets missing out on that intangible depth of soul and character which orthodox and devout cradle Catholics possess. But I am also glad for the very thorough grounding in the Scriptures I received growing up fundamentalist Protestant, even if our interpretations were quite often misguided. My mother used to read the Bible to my siblings and I every night, often chapters at a time. And she had us memorize whole chapters. And lastly, part of me wonders whether I would be what I am as a Catholic now, if I had not learned all that I learned as a son of devout Protestant parents. Unfortunately, many Catholic children are just not well catechized. So, in a way, I am very grateful for and indebted to my Protestant upbringing, as well as my Protestant seminary training. I respect those seminary professors very much, even though I disagree with them on important points.

Regarding my conversion, the 'sex perverts' issue was initially a stumbling block, as was the Mary issue (not her perpetual virgnity, which was just a non-issue to me) but her being 'co-mediatrix', and her role in our prayers and in Christ's blessings of His Church. Growing up, everything I knew about the Catholic Church I learned from Chick comic books and tracts, which were readily available at the local Christian bookstore. So, uniquely Catholic terms like "Eucharistic sacrifice", "co-mediatrix", "Vicar of heaven", "penance", "indulgence", etc. were utterly repulsive to me at a gut level. The key for me to overcome that baggage and my theological/Scriptural objections was the fathers, just seeing the Church and the Scriptures through the eyes of the fathers. The more I studied the fathers, the more I realized that the early church was undeniably and universally Catholic. When you read Church history, then you see the big picture. You see how the Church grows organically, with continuity both geographically and temporally. And yet it is always One organism, one body. Yes, the sex perverts in the Church today really bother me, and rightly so. But, in the big picture, the Church has gone through much worse. A good understanding of the Donatist heresy allows one to see that the authenticity and identity of the Church is not conditioned on the sins of its leaders. And as a Protestant I realized that I would be wrong for not uniting to Christ's Church on account of the sins of others. In other words, I could not justify remaining in schism because of their sins. Rather, no matter what evil others do, it was my responsibility as a Christian to be in full communion with the Church, and in that state of union to do whatever I could to help restore the Church to righteousness and holiness.

Christ's prayer in John 17 was also one of the most powerful things that led to my conversion. I could no longer justify remaining in schism. It was clear to me that Christ's heart is revealed in that prayer, and I could no longer justify thwarting the intentions of His sacred heart, especially as I came to understand from the fathers the authority of the Magisterium. Once I understand that, then my theological questions/objections on other matters were moot. For some of those objections it was only after I had decided to become Catholic that I started seeing the answers to them. My dear friend and sponsor told me that one does not become a Catholic because one happens to agree with all of Catholic doctrine; one believes Catholic doctrines (even if one does not understand them all) because of the authority of the Catholic Church. The former way of thinking is a Protestant way of thinking; "I won't become a Catholic unless I agree with all that the Catholic Church teaches." In that way of thinking, "I" am still the boss. As Augustine said, "For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

-A8

[kosta50]

It's the same word, sullambanw (sullambano), used to describe Mary's condition

That seems to be Luke's preference. Matthew and Paul use different words. You and xzins implied that all three use the same word. Lue's choice is indeterminete. Matthew's and Paul's is very specific. But they are not the same words.

[blue-duncan]

I didn't say that you specifically did refer to sola scriptura as superstition. I was responding to one who did and you asked why and I answered.

[blue-duncan]

"That seems to be Luke's preference"

Well, he's the doctor so he probably is the most accurate in describing her condition just like he is in describing the physical condition of Jesus on the cross.

[annalex]

Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual.

There you go, Blue.

[Wallace T.]

As I understand the Catholic position on the Magisterium, the validity of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is based firstly on Scriptural passages, notably the "binding and loosing" passages in Matthew 16 and 18 where Christ assigned "the keys to the kingdom" to the church. Secondly, the unique role of the Catholic Church is considered to originate in Christ's statement that Peter is the "rock" upon which the church will be built in Matthew 16 and the observation in Matthew 10:2 that describes Peter as the first of the apostles, even though he was not the first chosen by Christ. Because of this primacy and the evidence of apostolic succession in Acts 1, when Judas Iscariot was replaced, the Catholic position is that Peter's successors, considered to be the Popes, held the same "binding and loosing" powers as Peter as well as his primacy among the bishops. Several pre-Nicene fathers stated that the bishop of Rome was preeminent among the bishops, including Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneaus. To that basis may be added statements of the post-Nicene Fathers and the medieval Doctors. Similar statements may also be found regarding the unique teaching authority of the church from these sources.

A comparison may be made with orthodox, rabbinic Judaism. Obviously, Judaism rejects Jesus of Nazareth as being the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament as far back as Genesis 3:15, and by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets. After the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem and the ending of the Jewish commonwealth, the authoritative oral tradition of the rabbis dating back for centuries began to be reduced to writing, forming the basis for the Talmud, which was developed in Jerusalem and Babylon in the 4th and 5th Centuries AD. In turn, the Talmud and the Old Testament (Torah) were authoritatively interpreted by medieval Jewish scholars such as Solomon ben Isaac and Gershom of Mainz.

Orthodox rabbinical Judaism thus has a group of authoritative writings structured similarly to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (although, like Eastern Orthodoxy and unlike Catholicism, there is no one individual considered to be the visible head of God's people on earth given the authority to "bind and loose."). In terms of time frames and antiquity, the Jewish tradition predates that of the Christian religion by centuries. As with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, traditional Jews state that there is consistency between the Torah, Talmud, and the commentaries. Excluded from this camp are Karaites (Jewish believers who are "Sola Torah") and Reform and Conservative Jews (essentially theological liberals with a Jewish veneer). If your standard of objective fact are antiquity, consensus, and consistency, then orthodox, rabbinical Judaism would relegate Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to the status of superstition.

Why orthodox Christians reject the authority of the Talmud and the rabbinical commentaries is based on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah predicted in the Torah/Old Testament. Given that Jesus Christ Himself condemned the oral traditions of the Pharisees, the Jewish faction that was the progenitor of rabbinic Judaism, the Talmud and the subsequent rabbinic commentators are regarded by all orthodox Christians as invalid with respect to the Christian faith. In other words, the starting points for all orthodox Christian belief are the acceptance of the Old Testament as being the revealed Word of God and the view that Jesus Christ is the anticipated Messiah predicted in the Old Testament.

It is incorrect to say that sola Scriptura is superstition, even though the predominant belief of the pre-Reformation church was that of Scripture and tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the church through its councils and theologians. By the same standard applied to this Protestant doctrine, orthodox, rabbinical Judaism would have grounds to claim that the entire Christian religion is superstition. Ultimately, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and other religions are constructed on metaphysical presuppositions that are accepted on the basis of faith.

[blue-duncan]

"Clearly, Mary's pregnancy is treated differently, as not being lustful or carnal (physical). So there was no seed (the original Greek uses the word sperma for "seed")."

So then are you saying that the seed of the woman mentioned in Gen. 3:15 does not refer to Jesus?

[annalex]

called sola scriptura a superstition

I did. I often do. A bit harsh, -- I know this is a belief sincerely held, -- but not harsher than calling veneration of saints and images idolatry, Protestant stock in trade.

It is a superstition because it elevates a part of the created world to a supernatural status without a rational sanction. Things would be different if the Holy Scripture itself contained the doctrine in question.

[annalex]

Sorry but Protestants aren't into Sola Augustine.

I know but you yourself asked about the origin of the doctrine, and now you have your answer. What you do with it is your business.

[annalex]

Still this passage is equally consistent with the officers of the synagogue referring to Christ's cousins, once we realize that the word adelphos applied to cousins, and even more distant relatives. All the more so because James and Joseph are identified in Mark 15 as having different mother.

Your method is common to the Protestant analysis in general: take a short passage, use the vernacular translation literally, do not look at context, do not look at the related passages elsewhere, and thump the table with it. Do it when that contradicts the traidtional teaching. Do not do it when the same method confirms the traditional teaching (re-read James 2:24 through the same lense and get back to me). No sale.

[annalex]

Mary remained a virgin through the birth of Jesus [per St. Augustine]

Bornacatholic supplied additional cites from Augustine that clarify that he believed in her perpetual virginity till death, so whether the phrase "remained a virgin through the birth" can mean anything other than the Catholic doctrine of perpetual virginity is moot.

[Kolokotronis]

FK, I concur with Kosta here and with Alex at 590.