'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]

The Rock that Jesus was to build His church upon was not Peter. Rather, it was Peter's confession or the truth that Jesus Christ is the Lord, the Messiah, God in the flesh.

*Both.

Brother, even most protetstants are now admitting Peter/Cephas/Kepha was the rock.

When Jesus first spoke to him - Gospel of John - He tld Simon Barjonas he would change his name to Peter.

"Peter" as a name had never before existed.

When God changes your name, it signifes something rather important,no?

[annalex]

And you don't know from scripture whether Jesus had brothers and sisters

Yes. From scripture alone, as a direct evidence, we don't.

Look we don't even know if the gospel of Matthew is written by Apostle Matthew.

[annalex]

St. Gregory of Nyssa believed that eventually even those sent to hell would be saved

I wanted to post a collection of him and some others sometimes lumped up as origenists, as a hypothesis that what they really taught was not that, but purgatory: the eventual salvation of many, but not all, who now suffer for their sins. Maybe one slow day I will. I was reading Origen not long ago looking for the notion that Hell will be completely empty and did not find it.

[Blogger]

As a word, Petra verses Petras did exist. The word Jesus called Peter means "little stones, or pebbles". Upon the "Big ROCK, Boulder" of the truth that Peter spoke concerning Christ, Jesus would build His church.

Now, as to what "most protestants" do or do not believe 1) What statistics prove this? and 2) What does it have to do with the price of tea in China? Most Protestants are like most Catholics these days and do NOT know Scripture. So, who cares what an uniformed decision says?

[annalex]

NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that the Church itself is infallible

Really?

"I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" does not cut it? Why? How about "church, the pillar and foundation of truth"?

The Rock that Jesus was to build His church upon was not Peter

The scripture says the opposite: "Su ei Petros kai epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian". It does not say "your confession is rock", etc., but rather "you are [masculine of] rock".

[annalex]

The word Jesus called Peter means "little stones, or pebbles".

No it doesn't. "Petra" (feminine) is rock. "Petros" is a masculine form of the same word, which only exists as a proper noun. "Stone" would be "lithos", used by Peter is his epistle referring to the other believers (1 Peter 2:5).

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

"In general, I think the laws of decorum have been followed."

I disagree.

The Religion Moderator, to his credit, has deleted at least a few posts that were truly vulgar and nasty.

Post #76 was pretty darned explicit, but fortunately, it's now deleted.

There were a couple of other intrustions by Protestants that were rather less than decorous, as well. Actually, some of them were just pretty disgusting.

It's a darned shame that that kind of nonsense goes on in an unprotected thread.

I really don't believe that this thread should have been a caucus thread. But I really don't believe that posters who post filth, especially aimed at what others hold sacred or venerable, should be permitted to post at all on the Religion Forum, and I believe that should be made clear in the rules of the forum.


sitetest

[Blogger]

Sorry. I got them backwards. Trying to remember Greek isn't always easy :)


Petra- ) a rock, cliff or ledge

a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground

b) a rock, a large stone

c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul


Petros- "a rock or a stone

If Jesus were referring to Peter as the rock on which he would build His church, why not say "You are Peter, and YOU are the one I will build my church upon?" He was speaking directly to Peter. Grammatically, it doesn't make sense to say that the two are the same. Now, if Jesus is making a play on words, which I certainly believe that He was, then He was congratulating Peter on his acknowledgement of the truth and saying - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God - He will build His church.

[HarleyD]

It's a beautiful image as I envision Our Lord making his way into this world the way all humans do.

I was there when my son started making his way down the birth canal and then decide he liked it where he was. Trust me. It's not always a fun time.

[annalex]

The play of words is to make a masculine form "petros" out of feminine "petra", inappropriate without this change for a man's name. The conversation was near certainly taking place in Aramaic and not in Greek anyway; St. Matthew is simply rendering the renaming the best way he can in Greek.

The clue is the renaming, as well as the other distinctions given Peter alone: the keys, the charge to feed the sheep, and the promise to pray so that Peter converts his brethren. This means that Jesus meant his Church to be the effort of Peter in some personal and unique way. Your interpretation: "This is a big rock, and you are a small rock" does not fit the broader context.

[Blogger]

I disagree. Peter was never seen in Scripture as the Leader of the entire Church. Shortly afterward, Jesus is rebuking Peter and saying "Get thee behind me Satan!" Paul rebukes him as well. Regardless of the rebukes, Peter is nevertheless NEVER seen as THE head of Christ's church on earth. A leader, yes. THE leader, no. And since Scripture was written into the 90s, and the book of Acts covers the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, that's a pretty significant omission.

The Rock was Peter's bold confession about Jesus. It's the truth that HE, Jesus, is the Messiah. Upon that truth he will build His church. Peter was called a rock because of his boldness, steadfastness, and unyielding spirit to confess something that could have gotten him stoned. Peter knew the truth. If fact, he knew who the TRUTH was. And Jesus was pleased. He did not make him (Peter) the governor over all the church. In fact, in the broader context, Jesus gave the Keys to the church itself (as is seen just two short chapters later), not Peter exclusively.

[annalex]

The Satan comment is due to the fact that Satan indeed tempted Christ with temporal power, and St Peter unwittingly repeated the same temptation. But Peter duid worse: he denied Christ. And that was forgiven and his status was restored.

A leader, yes. THE leader, no

The Keys and the Feed my Sheep episode appoint the single leader, and it is indicated by his leadership in winning the first converts, leading in the issue of dietetic law, and several miracles described in Acts. St John Chrysostom called Peter Prince of the Apostles. It is true that St, Paul lists also St. James and St. John as "pillars".

The Rock was Peter's bold confession about Jesus

This is your opinion? The renaming indicates a personal attribute of Simon bar Jonas. You can spin it that way, -- I have no serious objection to it, as indeed his confession prompted the renaming and the keys episode, but it is your commentary, nothing more.

Jesus gave the Keys to the church itself (as is seen just two short chapters later), not Peter exclusively

This is not accurate scripturally. The Apostles are given the power to bind and loose in the context of the teaching authority of the Church, but the keys are not given them.

[Forest Keeper]

Both traditions have always maintained the Real Presence, but the theory of transubstantiation is alien to Orthodox phronema (mindset).

Thanks for the clarification. What you said was exactly the type of distinction I thought I remembered.

[Blogger]

Reread the text. The keys are the power to bind and loose. In Matthew 18, he gives this same power to the church (not the centralized organization, but the body of all believers). Verse 1 speaks of the "disciples" not the "apostles" per se.

Then, IN CONTEXT: Jesus says later in the same chapter,(Matt 18)

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Peter then asks a question regarding forgiveness and Jesus starts telling him about forgiveness and how it is in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Similarly, in the Keys of the Kingdom passage (Matt 16) Jesus says: 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again, when the RISEN Lord showed himself to the DISCIPLES that had gathered He said:
John 20:23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This was BEFORE there was an organized church anywhere. After this, the church spread like wildfire. Paul travelled most extensively, but Peter's words seem addressed not to the Romans but to those in Asia Minor. It can not be proven that Peter was ever in Rome and his epistles, for someone who is supposedly the 1st Pope are somewhat narrow in focus. They mainly deal with encouragement to the persecuted church and wasn't a doctrinal letter per se like Paul's letters were.

Again, if he were the first Pope, why not mention it? Even hint it? No special exclusive power was given to Peter to do anything. And Peter is NEVER EVER referred to as the head of the church on earth. He was one of the Lord's great apostles. And JESUS Himself is head over the Church.

[kosta50]

You are most welcome, FK. Good to have you back on the same thread. :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It probably varies from person to person. But my memory, thankfully shaded now by time, is that those last few minutes before birth were like an impending plane crash. You're being tossed all around the cabin, every part of your body being bruised by blunt objects. The only sound you hear is your own screams. You can't catch your breath; your lungs refuse to take in air. Bones feel like they're being crushed inside you.

But at the same time, above the frantic tension and wild assault, you sense there are two of you struggling to live. Beyond all the pain, you're aware that someone is already depending on you who is in even worse shape than you are, whose heart is beating so hard it must be near bursting. Someone who is desperate and determined to take that first gasp, no matter what is in his way.

So you work with him, following his lead. At that point, it's his show.

And then it's over and amazingly, hormones are released that permit the memory of the pain to fade away. You can remember you were in pain, but you can't conjure up the feeling of that pain again.

Which is a very good thing for second and third children. 8~)

I take comfort in believing Mary endured all the same pain and distress every mother goes through. It's part of the human experience, given as a gift from God.

Because when it's over, there is a child born, and nothing is ever the same again.

[Forest Keeper]

They don't agree with the scholastic precision with which it is defined in the West and prefer not to attempt to verbalize a mystery.

OK, thanks. It seems there is agreement.

[spunkets]

""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)."

Matthew knew them both. Had he meant the viginity was permanent, he would have indicated that. He would have extended the "till" beyond the birth, as he did with the field of blood. As it stands, Matthew simply noted the birth as the limit, not some future event. Matthew never noted "perpetual virginity" even though he knew them both well.

"In the economy of salvation, Mary giving birth to others would give a dubious status of Brother of God to the putative sibling;

Not in the least. Unless Mary was God's wife, which she wasn't.

it would also signal that with mothering Jesus her work was somehow not gloriously complete.

Not gloriously complete? Mary was Joseph's husband. Luke 2:48-50
When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

"It would also conflict with her adoption of, and by, St. John (John 19).

Not really. Joseph was dead. Maybe any bros and sisters were too, or being with John was better. It really never mattered to me if He had bros, or sisters and I can't say at this point if he did. The light through the window thing, I don't believe at all.

[adiaireton8]

Had he meant the viginity was permanent, he would have indicated that.

Another argument from silence.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Did you really think of yourself a schismatic?

No, not until it started to dawn on me what the Catholic Church is. Then, I realized I was a schismatic. Every Sunday in the Anglican Church I was attending, it got to the point where I could no longer bring myself to the say the line in the Creed: "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", the problematic word being "One". I wanted to believe in "One Church", but I knew that by being Anglican, I was in praxis denying that there is "One Church"; I was by my practice denying the obvious intention of the fathers who formulated the line "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". With mh lips I was saying this line every week, but in my practice (by being an Anglican) I was essentially saying that I didn't believe that line. Eventually, the contradiction got to a breaking point, and I knew I had to stop going to the Anglican church.

Thank you very much for your other comments. I'm glad to hear about your pastor. Sounds like another former Baptist, Stephen Ray, whose book was very helpful to me in comparing Anglicanism and Catholocism.

-A8