'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/

[Blogger]

You are not confused. You're just being argumentative and yes, I will repeat - PROTESTANTS can NOT embrace Catholicism's teachings concerning Mary. She is NOT our co-mediatrix. She is NOT the co-Redeemer. She was NOT sinless. She was NOT assumed into Heaven. Many of these Marian doctrines come from visions of "Mary" herself. They preach a different Gospel. And therefore, No, Luther or Calvin could not embrace them. Wesley was an Anglican. I doubt seriously that he would have embraced Marian theology as it current stands in the Catholic church either. As to what Modern day Lutherans are, some I would venture to say aren't even Christian in the Lutheran sense of understanding. The same could be said of modern Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Catholics and all churches. You have very few Lutherans who follow Luther's teaching to the tee. In some ways, this is actually a good thing, because even Luther was a product of where he came from and wasn't entirely consistent at all times with his beliefs.

[DungeonMaster]

Did you not read what I said at the beginning of the thread? Your posts are characteristic of a lack of respect.

In other words "please don't post opinions on this discussion forum".

[kosta50]

I agree that this line of teaching would be entirely unprofitable. I hope it is not some kind of settled dogma of the church, or whatever they call it

First, the only dogma of the Orthodox Church regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos (One who bore God), the Mother of God.

Second, the Church does teach, proclaim and affirm that the belief in her Ever-Virginity is an unbroken belief held by the Church since the beginning.

"The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation" [Gr. Archdioc. of America]

The Church reminds us, further that "it was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit." (Ibid)

Regarding St. Jospeh, GOARCH says

"Surely his wife’s miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary’s very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his “conjugal rights”!

The Lenten Liturgies are full of that ever-held belief

"For just as the bush was aflame but did not bum, so as a virgin you gave birth and virgin you remained."

"Who would not call you blessed, most holy Virgin? Who would not praise the painless birthgiving? For He who shone forth from the Father as only-begotten Son, the same now came forth from you, taking flesh in a manner beyond describing. Though God by nature, for our sakes He became man by nature, yet not split into a duality of persons, but revealed without confusion in two natures."

"O novel wonder and befitting God! * for the Lord himself has manifestly traversed * the gate of the Virgin, which was shut. * Raw God in His entry, * in His emergence He appeared as One bearing flesh, * the gate remaining shut notwithstanding. * She is unutterably God's Mother, and her we magnify." [Sunday Orthoros, III Mode]

"Lord, even as You came out of the sepulcher, though it was sealed shut, likewise You entered where Your Disciples were, the doors being shut also." [Sunday Orthodox, Plagal Mode of the 1st]

[HarleyD]

Didn't I read earlier that the Immaculate Conception didn't become official until the late 1800's?

Mary is new doctrine by Church history. The Immaculate Conception was created in 1854 and the Assumption as late as 1950. Kolo can correct me but I don't believe the Orthodox place much store on some of these doctrine.

Everyone (Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics) will acknowledge what a wonderful person Mary was but Catholics have taken this over the top.

[wagglebee]

Saying the Immaculate Conception was "created" in 1854 and the Assumption was "created" in 1950 is a lot like saying that gravity was "created" when Newton defined it.

But putting aside these two beliefs, let me ask you this, why do you and others have such a difficult time with perpetual virginity? Nowhere is scripture does it state that Mary had other children. The Lord entrusted Mary to John at the Crucifixion, this would seem unnecessary if He had siblings. Neither James nor Jude identify themselves as our Lord's broher. Perpetual virginity in no way impeeds Protestant teachings about man's sinful nature. Lutheran teaching has never questioned this. Luther, Calvin and Wesley defended it. Wesley didn't leave the Catholic Church, so there's no way to say that this was an idea he just "held onto."

[annalex]

[in view of Matt 1:25] it makes no sense that Mary became infertile.

No sense to whom, you?

Matthew 1 says nothing about Mary's relations with Joseph after Christ was born. The firstborn is a firstborn even if he remains the only male child, it is a legal status. "Till", Greek "eos", is often used in the sence that refers strictly to the past without reference to the future, like in "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, [eos] this day" (Mt 27:8).

In the economy of salvation, Mary giving birth to others would give a dubious status of Brother of God to the putative sibling; it would also signal that with mothering Jesus her work was somehow not gloriously complete. It would also conflict with her adoption of, and by, St. John (John 19).

[xzins]

Mary is new doctrine....

That's what I thought I had read, too.

The Reformers probably knew that this wasn't required teaching, wasn't really the issue of the Reformation, and had some personal growing to do themselves in their understanding of the bible.

It's one of those things on the back burner that eventually came to everyone's attention.

Sola Scriptura had to reject the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and certainly this Immaculate Hymen theory. They simply aren't supportable scripturally.....only externally to the scriptures.

[wagglebee]

Mary giving birth to others would give a dubious status of Brother of God to the putative sibling;

Which would have created a de facto royalty that could have very possibly continued to this day with people claiming to be direct descendants of God's siblings.

[kosta50]

It's always amazed me that some people find it so difficult to understand that in the case of the Holy Family

Protestants subscribe, imo, to jealous egalitarianism: "no one is as good as I am. My interpretation of the Bible is as good as anyone's." Humility has no meaning. God has already chosen those who will be saved, so why be humble, right? That way, they can indulge in passions as long as they cry "Lord, Lord," they will be fine. That's part of the appeal. Someone once remarked that it is real miracle Protestantism didn't spread more than it did.

An Orthodox Nativity icon actually shows Satan telling +Joseph not to believe the Virgin Birth because "it makes no sense." I think it is a telling indication as to what the Church though of those who doubted something the Church believed all along.

In the lower corner is dejected +Joseph and an old man, satan, is seen casting doubts.

[wagglebee]

The Reformers probably knew that this wasn't required teaching, wasn't really the issue of the Reformation, and had some personal growing to do themselves in their understanding of the bible.

John Wesley lived and preached more than two centuries after the start of the Reformation. Plus, he was never a Catholic, so there were no "Catholic ideas" that he had to rid himself of.

Still, your notion of "personal growing" in your "understanding of the Bible" fascinates me. This means that as you grow spiritually, you might actually come to understand the validity of Marian beliefs.

[xzins]

My contention, kosta, is simply that these things cannot be affirmed in scripture. That's the point, and that is the only point.

They can be affirmed by scripture + something else.

I would argue that the perpetual virginity cannot then be 2000 years old. There were no church fathers writing approximately one decade after the birth of Christ. The only ones writing were those who recorded instances during Christ's ministry on earth, approx 3 decades later.

Since there is no clear presentation of any perpetual virginity in scripture, the best you can say is that the perpetual virginity was taught from about 18 or 19 hundred years ago.

[kosta50]

Till", Greek "eos", is often used in the sence that refers strictly to the past without reference to the future

Correct. And here we have another English-language bible only misunderstanding. The Greek term is really closer to until.

There are numerous biblical examples that show this beyond any doubt. It would also conflict with her adoption of, and by, St. John

In fact, it would have been illegal.

[xzins]

personal growing....

We can all hope. :>)

Wesley, too, would be exempt. Still too soon to be getting to extraneous, non-required doctrines.

[wagglebee]

On an purely intellectual level, none of it makes sense. Mysteries of Faith are called mysteries for a reason. How would any of us react if an Angel of God appeared to us and told us these things? How would any of us feel if we were holding an Infant in our arms knowing that He was God? Why would St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary even consider having other children when their Child was THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON WHO WILL EVER LIVE? Would it have been fair to bring other children into the world, when serving their Firstborn was THEIR SOLE PURPOSE IN LIFE?

[P-Marlowe]

Here we have some very unscriptural and pagan teachings about Mary.

1) She was "immacualtely conceived" so the curse of Adam was not upon her.
2) She remained a "perpetual virgin".
3) She gave birth to Jesus by having him miraculously avoid going through the vaginal canal (like the rest of humanity).
4) Her hymen remained intact forever.
5) She lived an entirely sin free life.
6) She was better than all of us mere mortal because "Mary did what we can't do – love God with all her heart and mind and soul. There was no other devotion in her life, but God."
5) She was miraculously assumed into heaven.

Of course none of this can be found in scripture or in the teachings of the apostles. But it appears to me to be nothing short of worship. To many, Mary appears to be higher than Human and worthy of what appears to be "worship" (but those who worship her call it "veneration" in order to avoid the obvious scriptural prohibition to worship only God).

But quite frankly I don't see any essential or objective difference in their admiration for Mary and their admiration for Jesus. Since she was herself outside humanity inasmuch as she was born without sin (which would make her unique among all creatures) and lived a sinless life, which would make her equal to Christ (and in fact better than Christ since she was able to live that life without the benefit of being a member of the Trinity).

I now understand why Pius XII felt it necessary to proclaim ex-cathdra that Mary was assumed into heaven. If she were born without sin and did not herself sin, then she could not die. Hence since they have proclaimed the fact of her sinless birth and sinless life, how could they acknowledge that she was capable of dying?

I tell you I have learned a lot from this thread. I have learned how important it is to stick to scripture. The Church at Galatia fell into error quite quickly after Paul had left them alone. The Church at Rome was no more immune from falling into error than the church at Galatia. It appears that they have fallen into error. Only the supremacy of scripture can prevent a church from falling into the preaching of another gospel. Paul did not preach all this nonsense about Mary. None of this nonsense about mary can be found in scripture. It has all come about through tradition. And when tradition is given equal footing with scripture, there is no way to stop the errors from becoming doctrine and dogma.

/rant

[kosta50]

My contention, kosta, is simply that these things cannot be affirmed in scripture

Inasmuch as it is not specifically spelled out, yes, but it doesn't mean that it is not hinted. Besides, the Gospels were written to tell the world the truth about Christ, and did not focus on His Mother unless she was directly involved.

It would have bene not only dangerous to include her, for the possibility that she may be worshipped by some, but also neither would she, in her humility, ever wish to draw attaention awya form her Son and onto her.

Christ is a Mystery that is not ours to "understand." If we believe in Christ, we beleieve that nothing about Him is "natural" or "usual," whether it is his seedless Incarnation, His miraculous Birth, or His death.

Given what we do know of her, we could safely say that her womb became the Tabernacle, and I seriously doubt that any of the apostles or fathers would have ever thought of it being violated after Christ's Birth.

Nor is there any clear indication that it was.

[Pyro7480]

Here we have some very unscriptural and pagan teachings about Mary.

Pagan? Because you believe the tired propaganda about the Catholic Church?

If she were born without sin and did not herself sin, then she could not die. Hence since they have proclaimed the fact of her sinless birth and sinless life, how could they acknowledge that she was capable of dying?

The dogma of the Assumption DOES NOT say whether or not Mary died. Jesus was obviously sinless, and He died. Why would He exempt His Mother? The Eastern tradition concerning the end of her life is she "fell asleep" (dormition).

[xzins]

You make many great points, but the best for me was noticing that if she'd been born without sin and had not sinned, then she would not fall under the death penalty and would have to be taken to heaven without dying.

I am a bit amused by the hymen debate...it's so relatable to those societies that elevate virgin brides; the ones that require proof -- a bloodied sheet, an eyewitness, whatever, of the bride's virginity.

Without a hymen in those cultures there was no virginity.

[wmfights]

"You have been taught that Thetokos delivered thrugh a birth canal?"
_____________________________

Excuse me for jumping in here, I'm just trying to catch up. Is it RCC's teaching that in addition to Mary not suffering birth pains and her hymen not being broken that Jesus was not delivered through her birth canal?

I've never heard this before.

[Pyro7480]

Before you go any further, you should know that kosta50 and Kolokotronis are not Catholic. They are Eastern Orthodox.