'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/

[Mad Dawg]

Check it out.

I think sometimes we post stuff which may seem hateful or contemptuous to others without realizing how we seem. So when they, feeling wounded, lash back we wonder where THAT came from.

[Buggman]

Josephus is pretty much the only source available to peek into that era.

Not true, and I've already listed several other sources, including the NT.

As for Josephus' spinelessness, a) that's rather harsh given the circumstances, and b) while that most likely affected his "spin" on Roman/Jewish relations, there's no reason to believe that his surrender to the Romans would affect his testimony about the Jewish canon, a completely unrelated issue.

But the same could be said of the oldest Hebrew Bible which is a 10th century (AD!) copy of the originals.

Which I've not referenced in regard to determining the canon, so what's your point? Anyway, the fact that the Hebrew was transmitted correctly and faithfully has actually been confirmed by the DSS.

But, indirect evidence suggests that the older versions of the LXX may be closer to the original (based on such comments as made in the 4th century by +Augustine in his Retractions, etc.).

Again, you're not using the latest data on the state of the Tanakh in the first century, which is built on the DSS. There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic (i.e., Psalm 22:16, "piercers of My hands and My feet" as opposed to "like a lion are My hands and My feet"--a difference, in the Hebrew, of exactly one letter), but these a) are corrected in the DSS, and b) are few and far between, and there are numerous other places where it is known to be less accurate--including those instances in the NT where the Apostles eschewed using it even though it was the most common source of Greek Scriptures in their day.

Just out of curiosity, which Apostles quote from the Hebrew text?

If I recall correctly, this feature crops up fairly often. I'll have to dig for the quotes in a bit; I'm about to head out now. Let me get back to you either tonight or later this weekend.

But why would you single out Sha'ul as a "special case"? It seems to me that we should take special note that the Apostle to the Gentiles didn't use the LXX nearly half the time!

God bless.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your beautiful insights!

I believe God telling Israel that he did not want Kings is a foreshadowing of this as well.

Indeed, that rings true in my Spirit as well!

I believe the keys to the Kingdom of heaven is the Holy Spirit and those that are bound are those that believe in Jesus, just as Peter had just done, and those that don't are loosed in heaven.

This also rings true in my Spirit. Peter was first to receive the direct revelation from the Father and along with it he had responsibilities/authorities concerning Christ's sheep, most especially to proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, the receiving being a binding, the rejecting being a loosing.

We all have this responsibility/authority once we have received the same direct revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord. (compare Matt 16 and Matt 18 on binding and loosing)

But as you say, people often seem to want a "king" or at least to put someone or some thing between themselves and God. I believe the following is a type for that phenomenon as well, i.e. that people, out of fear, want their pastor, minister, preacher, prophet, saint, evangelist, apostle or pope to be an intermediary - because they cannot bear the glory of God personally.

And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.

And [till] Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel [that] which he was commanded.

And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him. - Exo 34:29-35

It reminds of that line from the movie, "Truth? You can't handle the truth!" And so many willfully do not behold the glory of God and appoint intermediaries, trusting them instead and burdening them with their own spiritual well being - and worse, putting the intermediary in peril should at any time he act of self-will (fail in utter humility) - and like Moses, for a single failing be denied entry to the "promised land." (Also a "type" wrt this phenomenon.)

[HarleyD]

The Vatican didn't abrogate the sin of lust. It's two separate issues.

Do you have a reference for that? The Vatican view on sin is that it must be "acted" upon. Here is a portion of a very lengthy article on the Vatican view of sin. I would especially note how "free will" is intertwined with this misguided theology.

Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter

Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. - New Advent on Sin

The Vatican has done away with any type of internal sins one might have. It is only when man acts upon his sin on his own "free will" that he, in fact, sins. Consequently, any thoughts of the heart, lust, etc. isn't really sin until man acts upon it. If that is the case, one has to wonder why the Vatican only will allow homosexuals in a monastery?

I would point out that the article notes how this differs from the Reformers who viewed sin as ANY action, internal or external. Evil thoughts that proceed from the heart, however hidden they are to those around, are considered sinful before God. Whether you are lusting after your neighbor, your neighbor's wife or his car is no different; sin is still sin and must be confessed before God. (I will caveat that there are degrees of sin with some sins being more vile in the sight of God.)

I should have know man's "free will" should be at the bottom of all this. Man can have any thoughts or ideas they wish as long as they don't act them out. Thus, according to this definition you could hate your neighbor in your heart as long as you don't "act it out". This is man's free will??? I'm always amazes me at how many theological errors are spawned over this ONE seemingly innocent belief on the free will of man. What a piece of garbage theology, IMO.

Then again, you'd think that I would learn my lesson.

[hosepipe]

[ Again, I assert that the Word of God is not a collection of text on paper, pixels on a monitor, dye on papyrus or pressure waves (sound). He is alive! ]

The very thing tradition and dogma trys to occlude..
Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters..
God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive..
NOT a formulaic human observation..

[Mad Dawg]

You'd think I'd learn MY lesson.

But here goes: I think you're misunderstanding what we mean by "act". IMHO there are internal voluntary acts as well as acts that can be seen by others. Planning a deception is a sin, for example.

From the page to which you linked:

That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness" (Matthew 23:27).

[D-fendr]

Yes, we have free will and are responsible for our actions.

[D-fendr]

A doctrine of no free will is more problematic - it collapses IMHO.

If you don't have free will, you cannot, by definition, choose.

Anything.

[Mad Dawg]

The very thing tradition and dogma trys to occlude..

We're trying to occlude the Life of the Word? I can see how you might say that we do so inadvertently, but how you conclude that we're "trying" to hide the Life of the Word escapes me.

[wmfights]

It reminds of that line from the movie, "Truth? You can't handle the truth!" And so many willfully do not behold the glory of God and appoint intermediaries, trusting them instead and burdening them with their own spiritual well being...

I agree. It's stunning how the OT is so great in illustrating for us the pitfalls of human behavior and how it separates us from God.

[annalex]

As Catholic, I go by Jerome's Vulgate as definitive, and he largely followed the masoretic version of the Old Testament. I also have some familiarity with the languages involved, but I did not studied the texts in linguistical depth; the Orthodox (Christian, of course) know more and have a greater stake in the debate, so I punt.

From what I know, the Septuagint was in the Early Church's mindspace generally speaking, more than the Hebrew originals. St. Paul might be an exception here, since he was a trained pharisee; and of course all the quotations he most likely did from memory. Understand that it is the mindset of the early Church that closes the deal with me and most Catholics, not the letter of the Old Testament.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Hebrew original is what we know from the post-Jamnia Hebrew Canon; since Jamnia is the same council that also condemned Christianity and put a demarkation line between it and Judaism, we as Christians cannot be commanded by their decisions.

Lastly, of the the extant copies of the Old Testament is is the Septuagint that is the oldest, is it not?

For these reasons I take the Septuagint extremely seriously, and expect it to reflect the mind of the Church very well, even if the Vulgate is the perfect expression of it.

[annalex]

I did not call the Bride of Christ satanic. I called the church of Luther's time satanic

The Church at Luther's time was in a sorry shape. This is what the scripture says about it:

love your wives as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish

(Eph 5)

This is what St. John the Chrysostom explains about it:

So then she was unclean! So then she had blemishes, so then she was unsightly, so then she was worthless! Whatsoever kind of wife you shall take, yet shall you never take such a bride as the Church, when Christ took her, nor one so far removed from you as the Church was from Christ. And yet for all that, He did not abhor her, nor loathe her for her surpassing deformity. Wouldest thou hear her deformity described? Hear what Paul says, "For you were once darkness." (Eph. v. 8.) Did you see the blackness of her hue? What blacker than darkness? But look again at her boldness, "living," says he, "in malice and envy." (Tit. iii. 3.) Look again at her impurity; "disobedient, foolish." But what am I saying? She was both foolish, and of an evil tongue; and yet notwithstanding, though so many were her blemishes, yet did He give Himself up for her in her deformity, as for one in the bloom of youth, as for one dearly beloved, as for one of wonderful beauty. And it was in admiration of this that Paul said, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die (Rom. v. 7.); and again, "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. v. 8.) And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her. . "That He might sanctify it having cleansed it," he proceeds, "by the washing of water with the word; that He might present the Church to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." "By the washing or laver" He washes her uncleanness. "By the word," says he. What word? "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. xxviii. 19.) And not simply has He adorned her, but has made her "glorious, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Let us then also seek after this beauty ourselves, and we shall be able to create it. Seek not thou at your wife's hand, things which she is not able to possess. Do you see that the Church had all things at her Lord's hands? By Him was made glorious, by Him was made pure, by Him made without blemish? Turn not your back on your wife because of her deformity. Hear the Scripture that says, "The bee is little among such as fly, but her fruit is the chief of sweet things." (Ecclus. xi. 3.) She is of God's fashioning. Thou reproachest not her, but Him that made her; what can the woman do? Praise her not for her beauty. Praise and hatred and love based on personal beauty belong to unchastened souls. Seek thou for beauty of soul. Imitate the Bridegroom of the Church.

(Homily 20 on Ephesians)

Thou reproachest not her, but Him that made her. I have nothing but scorn for Luther. Sorry.

[annalex]

It's not the desire itself but the object of that desire that is adulterous

Yes, exactly.

[hosepipe]

[ We're trying to occlude the Life of the Word? I can see how you might say that we do so inadvertently, but how you conclude that we're "trying" to hide the Life of the Word escapes me. ]

Whos the "We"?.. I did not target anybody specifically(on purpose)..
Tradition and the dead letter of the word can be universal..
"Sola Scriptura" can be either alive or dead..

The living word of God is alive no matter the source of it..

[annalex]

Expecting mercy and being obedient are not mutually exclusive

"Expecting" is a sneaky word here. You hope for mercy. You do not presume mercy. Hope is extolled as a theological virtue. The assuredness of salvation is a protestant spin on certain verses. The Apostles taught in terms of hope:

we are saved by hope.

(Romans 8)

mindful of the work of your faith, and labour, and charity, and of the enduring of the hope of our Lord Jesus Christ before God and our Father

(1 Thessalonians 1)

every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy.

(1 John 3)

brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election.

(2 Peter 1)

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may, I don't see where hosepipe was speaking of Catholicism per se but rather, generally, that tradition and dogma try to occlude the fact that the Word of God is alive.

The motivation (wanting to be the intermediary) is inferred from the particular honor given to certain texts and writings in the territorial domains of Christian assemblies (whether Catholic, Calvinist, Orthodox, Mormon or whatever) so as to recognize the Person of Jesus Christ, Himself - indirectly through those honored scripts rather than directly - One on one - without filters, veils, intermediaries, etc.

Which was hosepipe's point here:

Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters.. God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive.. NOT a formulaic human observation..

For the philosophers among us the difference is between the image (or artifacts) of the person and the Person.

The inference is that assemblies per se seem to want to look at the image rather than the Person and thus there are dogmas, traditions, etc. Also related to post 5923, i.e. the dogma and tradition are a 'vail' like the one which was wanted to obscure His glory from Moses' face.

[annalex]

if anyone - anyone - ever was good enough ("works") to get into heaven then Christ died for nothing.

This does not follow. Christ died so that your works may have the fruit of salvation. Without Him, they would be dead, see Romans 3-5. With Him, they brign you to the finish line:

24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. 25 And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one. 26 I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air: 27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

(1 Corinthians 9)

[Alamo-Girl]

Blessed assurance comes after a long walk with the Lord, getting to know Him personally and intimately. As for me, I'm beyond any element of doubt (emphasis mine):

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Timothy 1:2

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. – 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39

[annalex]

Jam 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death

This is all I need: disposition -> lust -> sin born -> sin accomplished -> death. The disposition in itself is not sin. It may lead to it; then it may not.

[Mad Dawg]

I was wrong.

In mitigation, though, I do want to mention the frequent disparaging of the Catholic Church as bound by tradition and dogma. For us they, that is teachings and the things handed down to us by our predecessors, are not veils but conduits and signposts leading directly to the Vision of God (if we let them).

But yeah and sho' 'nuff! The peril of theologians is to prefer theology to God.