'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/

[cornelis]

You make a good case, annalex.

The extremes which tend toward a denial of either the agency of God or the agency of man are heresy. Both sides can admit that it takes hard work, and a lot of it.

[Blogger]

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)

The true church, the body of all believers, yes. Not the Roman Catholic institution at that time. It was more like this:

Jude 1

3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

... 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

... 10But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.



Luther refused to spend his life under evil men. He married a woman he loved very much. They had many children whom they raised to love the Lord. He served as a pastor and teacher. He was FAR from perfect; but none are. He truly believed and loved the Lord. But, he was a man of his own times as were many of the Reformers and Catholics at the time. He should be judged by that standard not our own.

[Kolokotronis]

" That, my beloved sisters and brothers, is the Spiritual discernment I have received of John 6 - we are to feed on Him, The Living Word of God. That is the meaning of Lord's command, "take, eat, this is my body" and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26)"

Who told you this, AG?

[D-fendr]

I was wondering when someone was going to post The Confiteor.

Thanks.

[D-fendr]

Sin must be acted out.

I'm afraid you really are in error what the Church teaches on sin and thoughts and 'act'.

See The Confiteor above for one obvious example. The Confiteor is said often in Mass.

[Alamo-Girl]

The observer problem is indeed a test to the spirit of man..

It certainly is! Thank you so much for your insights!

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm not. I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men.

[Alamo-Girl]

I probably call sanctification a "walk" because I am drawn to the Apostle John, and he uses that term (emphasis mine):

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:5-10

[Alamo-Girl]

But I'm only a mere protestant who believes her sins have been covered by the blood of Jesus. What do I know? (smile)

The part that matters! Praise God!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you again, so very much!

[Alamo-Girl]

Hi there, cornelis! I'm so glad to see you here. Thank you for sharing your insights!

[Buggman]

I guess Josephus was a survivor.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not presenting the guy as a source of inspiration. I just don't see any point in demonizing him either.

Josephus was following his own agenda. He did and wrote what was good for him.

And pray-tell, what is your evidence that the matter of the Jewish canon was something that he saw fit to lie about for his own purposes? And exactly what would those alleged purposes be, anyway?

The unfortunate part is that there is almost nothing to go by to corroborate his writings from independent sources.

The unfortunate part is that about 90+% of what we know about ancient history is single-sourced. So what then is your point?

Even the one piece that exists about Christ is rendered in four versions.

Thanks to Christian scribes who saw fit to interpolate their own prejudices into Josephus' writings and thereby almost destroy the value of the earliest non-Biblical source on the existence of Yeshua the Messiah.

I don't see how the stupidity of later Christians in regards to one passage of Josephus somehow discredits his comment on the canon of the Tanakh in a completely different work. Nor for that matter do I see how Josephus' undeniable knack for spinning the Jewish wars in favor of his Roman patron and the party of the Pharisees has anything to do with his ability to report the established Jewish canon of the first century--a matter that the Romans wouldn't have given two shakes about and which those Jews who would not have been happy about him "turning traitor" would have been happy to rip him on (a rip which would have been recorded in the Talmud, most likely) had he been inaccurate.

Do you have any alternate evidence to present that the Apocrypha were widely accepted by any Jewish group in the first century? Or for that matter by any Christian group in that period? No? Then stop wasting my time with poisoning the well techniques and just admit it.

Apprently not if "There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic" as you point out.

As opposed to dozens of places where the LXX is less accurate?

Look, the differences in the LXX are often due to the fact that the LXX, like the Targums, is more a dynamic-equivalent translation than a word-for-word translation. That's actually one of the things that makes it so useful as a historical resource, since it gives us insight into the understandings of the translators. However, to rely on it is like relying solely on the NIV instead of taking the time to learn Greek and Hebrew and study the Bible in its original languages--you limit yourself.

Other reasons for the differences are discussed here--it seems that there were multiple textual traditions, all of which were found among the DSS.

Now, if you wanted to use the LXX as a guide as to which textual tradition to follow (the Egyptian as opposed to the Masoretic, for example) in places where the existent Hebrew manuscripts were in dispute, okay, fine. That's normal textual criticism, and we do it all the time with the LXX, the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac text, the DSS, etc. I think it's foolish to rely too much on a single tradition, but I can understand your reasoning.

But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that the Greek translation of the LXX is actually superior to and should be referred to instead of any Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh. You're not just using it for a guide, you're pretending that God came down and gave the Torah in Greek on Mt. Sinai.

Well, He didn't. He chose instead to give the Scriptures in Hebrew to men of Oriental culture and thought. Instead of reading the Scriptures in their original context, you're filtering them through your own Western prejudices--and not interpreting them correctly.

Paul preached his own gospel. I will leave it at that.

And . . . ? Not seeing a point here.

It seems to me that the Gentiles should have been preached the same Scripture preached by Christ in the Gospels, which is LXX.

If you think Yeshua was preaching in Greek in Galilee and Judea, you don't know enough about the history and sociology of the area to even be having this conversation with. Do you know why the Romans let Josephus live? Two reasons: A) He "prophesied" Titus' ascendancy, and B) they needed someone to translate for them because most Judeans didn't speak Greek!

Well, I was right--this has indeed been every bit as fruitful as debating with a KJV-Only fanatic would be. "If the King James' was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me!"

[Buggman]

As Catholic, I go by Jerome's Vulgate as definitive, and he largely followed the masoretic version of the Old Testament.

Waitwaitwait . . . you're saying that one should accept the Vulgate as definitive--but not follow Jerome's example in going back to the original languages of the Scripture to do any new translation?

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.

So again . . . you're saying that we should not follow the Apostle--and Rabbi--Sha'ul's example in becoming intimately familiar with the text in its original language before doing any translation? Well by golly, forget this Vulgate-Septuagint-Masoretic debate, I'll just go by the good ol' King James!

Or not. I think I'll follow the example of the good Pharisee. And while I have issues with Jerome on other matters, I have to give the man credit enough for being the first person in two or more centuries by his time to be smart enough to realize that its stupid to do a translation from another translation, and return to the original!

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.

Yes, yes, just like it was the mindset of the rabbis that closed the deal for the Pharisees who sided against the Messiah rather than return to the letter of the Tanakh. Ever notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?

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.

Already dealt with some posts ago; no other contemporary source considered the Apocrypha to be canon, so the mere fact that Jamnia ratified what was already accepted hardly makes it wrong. The disputes were all about whether books we now accept as canon (most notably Esther and Song of Solomon) belonged in the canon, not over, for example, 1 and 2 Maccabees.

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

No. The DSS are far older than any extant copies of the LXX.

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.

Yep, KJV-Onlyists.

[HarleyD]

You have No idea what the Church teaches!

I'm often told that. In my defense I would say that half the Catholics here don't understand what the Church teaches. Also, I have yet to find a succinct Catholic-for-Dummies Guide published by the Vatican so don't blame me.

On the contrary, It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is a sin." Now "not to do" does not imply an act .Therefore sin can be without act.

Perhaps you would care to tell me the Catholic position of allowing priests in certain duties who admit to homosexual tendencies? It seems to me that if this wasn't an issue, then they should allow them to serve wherever they like. If it is an issue then why are they catering to it? More to the point, based upon what you posted, would you state that homosexuality is a sin without an act?

The Catholic Church doesn't single out heterosexual priests simply because they may have impure thoughts about women, do they?

I believe this conversation all started when it was suggested that Protestants cater to the gays while Catholics do not. You will find that most Protestants still look at homosexuality as a sin, not as a human condition brought on by the environment as the Catholic Church.

[Alamo-Girl]

me: That, my beloved sisters and brothers, is the Spiritual discernment I have received of John 6 - we are to feed on Him, The Living Word of God. That is the meaning of Lord's command, "take, eat, this is my body" and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26)

Kolokotronis: Who told you this, AG?

It is the discernment I have received from the indwelling Spirit (Romans 8, John 14-17, John 1, Rev 19) concerning these passages of Scripture (emphasis mine):

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matt 4:4

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. - John 6:28-35

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. - John 6:47-58

BTW, the above - and John 3 concerning being born again - are two passages I often use as examples of truths which can only be Spiritually discerned, i.e. reasoning and sensory perception fail.

[HarleyD]

But if you think about it, our mind and our thoughts are not completely out of our control.

Our minds are not completely out of control simply because of God. If you think otherwise then that is pride. Our natural spiritual tendency is towards evil with one of the greatest of evil being that of sodomy. The only reason we resist is because of God.

Rom 9:29 And just as Isaiah foretold, "UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH."

Christians need to stop manufacturing excuses for sin and call it what it is. The only way people can get help with such a condition is if they ask God to remove it from them.

[hosepipe]

Beautiful work.. just lovely.. bullseye..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Beautiful post, thank you!

Yes, yes, just like it was the mindset of the rabbis that closed the deal for the Pharisees who sided against the Messiah rather than return to the letter of the Tanakh. Ever notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?

Piercing.