'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/

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched." -- Numbers 11:1-2

Amen. 8~)

[D-fendr]

God knocks but you still have to open the door.

[bornacatholic]

Here is all you need to know about us Latins.

Writing in Report of the Embassy to Constantinople to the officials back in Cremona (Italy), Liutprand,the Ambassador,after witnessing the impressive display described in The Book of Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court,begins with first things first...

...the wine of the Greeks,mixed with pitch,resin and chalk, was for us undrinkable...

We know how to prioritise:)

BTW,here is Fr. Robert Taft on The Book of Ceremonies...

This source, by far the most complete and interesting of the imperial ceremonials, describes what the emperor and his entourage do with such meticulous precision as to make the present-day ritual of a papal coronation or royal wedding at Westminster Abbey appear to be as spontaneous as the Woodstock Festival by comparison.

*This really doesn't have much to do with your post but, I am reading Through Their Eyes, Liturgy as the Bzyantines Saw It and it is an easy, informative, and great read and I wanted everybody else to read it too

[Blogger]

To you comments, I only ask a question - recognizing you come at this from the Orthodox point of view and not the Protestant point of view. Since the Sacraments appear to be prime in what you espouse, how faithful is one being to the sacraments when one denies by nearly ever action and proclamation the Lord that those Sacraments supposedly represent? I mean, I could go to a Muslim and baptize him in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, but because his worldview is against the Biblical Christ that baptism has no validity.

The church leadership from the Popes through the cardinals and bishops under the cardinals was loaded with anti-Christian Aristocrats. Christ was a means to power rather than the true God to be obeyed. The formalities of a sacrament didn't make them any less anti-Christian when their entire worldview was centered upon hedonism.

There were some pious devotees to Christianity. They were the "pockets" I spoke of. But when Luther could go to Rome and find brothels just for the clergy - uh, Houston, there is a problem.

Though I personally do not believe in sacramentalism (I believe Baptism and Lord's Supper were ordinances not sacraments), trying to look at it from an Orthodox and Catholic point of view, I would think a "faith that works" in the Lord of the Sacrament would be of great importance in the validity of the Sacrament. I am aware of what the Donatists argued and that is not exactly what I am arguing. I am not arguing about the efficacy of the sacrament on the church member based upon the worldliness of the priest; rather, I am wondering if one has a church hierarchy which is largely hedonistic in practice and a people who really don't know the difference other than that they don't like the corruption but really have no epistemological basis by which to confront the hedonism - how can that still be considered to be a church? How can the sacraments administered be considered to have efficacy? How can the apostolic succession be considered unbroken?

The only way it can is through the priesthood of all believers and a spiritual succession in the hearts and lives of those individuals based upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the faithfulness to God's Word.

Men's institutional hierarchy may fail. But the institution is not the church. The church is the people who are the sheep of the shepherd be they from Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant streams.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"The nature of the Divine goodness is not only to open to those who knock, but also to cause them to knock and ask." -- AUGUSTINE

[Quix]

Men's institutional hierarchy may fail. But the institution is not the church. The church is the people who are the sheep of the shepherd be they from Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant streams.
= = =

INDEED.

There are many great points made above . . . maybe I shall get back to them.

Am trying to lay low more today--in the hopes of getting better again. Am better now than was last night, PTL.

But I may have more energy for pontificating later.

Many good reads above. Thanks, all.

[D-fendr]

I'm about a third way through - covering the six elements of development - Orthodox Spirituality by a monk of the Eastern Church. It's more modern, 1945, than I expected. So it's more encompassing.

It is quite a remarkable framework for pulling things together - the smatterings of this and that that I've been reading. It also makes me feel quite ignorant.

I was happy to see that my observations thus far agreed with: "There is no chasm between Eastern and Western Christianity. The fundamental principles of Christian spirituality are the same in the East and in the West; the methods very often alike; the differences do not bear on the chief points. On the whole, there is one Christian spirituality with, here and there, some variations of stress and emphasis."

Happy to see this partly because it means that while I am a rank amateur, I don't start from scratch in learning from the East.

This short tome and the link from Kosta to The Mystery of Faith are extremely valuable in combining clarity and breadth. Thanks to you both.

I'm also reading and recommending "The Art of Prayer - an Orthodox Anthology" compiled by Igumen Chariton of Valamo; and, for pure fun, a book of Tolstoy's tales.

One day soon, maybe I'll wake up and understand Greek. Thus far all I've managed is Texan with a Slavic accent.

[Ping-Pong]

Timer, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I just came across your post 8707. Excuse the delay but I will reply now.

No one said there was inferior stock and I am not racist. God created the different races and He said "It was very good". Have you seen any reference to inferior or superior in what I have written? Fact - there are different races, fact - they were created before Adam according to the Biblical account. How is that specifying that anyone is inferior? If you got that from my post then you need to reread it and ask yourself why it popped into your mind.

I do not believe that DNA proves we come from one common Eve - sorry but I put that in the same category as evolutionary theories being taught as fact.

By the way, we may be a mere dust mote in the vast universe but we are not pisant worms. We are children of God.

[1000 silverlings]

I put that in the same category as evolutionary theories being taught as fact.

Yes, they can't stay away from FR

[Mad Dawg]

If I understand what you are saying, your argument puts the survival or continuation of the Church qua Church on the works and faithfulness of men.

We think the Church depends on the works and faithfulness of God. That might be an important difference.

[Kolokotronis]

"...the wine of the Greeks,mixed with pitch,resin and chalk, was for us undrinkable...

We know how to prioritise:)"

Chalk!? Sounds to me like your Latin taste is all in your Latin mouths! You just don't appreciate the subtle uncreated mysteries/energies of our libations. Imagine saying such a thing about retsina! Nectar of the gods, I tell you, nectar of the gods (and good with lamb too, cuts the grease)! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"How can the sacraments administered be considered to have efficacy?"

Its really simple. It is the Holy Spirit Who consecrates the bread and the wine, not the priest. Indeed that is so in all the sacraments of The Church. The priest, whether he be a virtual devil or the greatest of saints, is never more than the "minister" of the service, though he stands "in the place of Christ", ex opere operato as the Latins say. The sinfulness of the priest is taken as a given, Blogger, in both the Latin and the Orthodox Churches. +John Chrysostomos, a very, very great saint and compared to the likes of me, a very holy man who ultimately died for The Faith in exile, said this:

"I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.

And a bit later, this:

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me." The worthiness of priests and hierarchs has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any sacrament or with the apostolic succession. Are such men a scandal to the faithful? Yes. Do they and did they deserve to be removed? Yes. Are some of them likely damned? Absolutely! Remember what +John Chrysostomos reminded his brother hierarchs about the pavement of hell! But in fact, none of these evil men are The Church, though the ecclesiology of the Latin Church at that time certainly made it look that way. The remedy though was not to reject The Church and the sacraments which we to this day and most of the original reformers in the beginning, believe are established for our theosis. In so doing, the reformers fell to the same curse that those evil hierarchs had, pride.

[1000 silverlings]

But no toe kissing.

Acts10:25

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

[Quix]

INDEED.

Particularly given some toes!

[Mad Dawg]

Well, and in any event they have to get the foot out of the mouth first.

[Quix]

There is that.

Nap calls again . . .thx.

[jo kus]

But in fact, none of these evil men are The Church, though the ecclesiology of the Latin Church at that time certainly made it look that way.

ARGGHHH!

You were doing so well! Is it necessary to throw in such comments?

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Let me get this straight: God writes the script and says "Man must rebel against me. The only reason he shall rebel against me is that I say it must happen.

You say it like it's a bad thing. :) I take it that you believe in the alternative: God doesn't write a script and doesn't care one way or the other what men do with His creation. Whatever they decide to do, that is fine with Him. Man rebelling against God was an accident, it didn't have to go that way, but fate or fortune or luck determined it instead.

So, in truth, man did not have a choice, but was predestined to rebel.

God could have created Adam and Eve to be immune to sin. He did not. Therefore, that sin would happen was part of God's plan. That is, if God is in control of His creation. If man is in control of God's creation, then I suppose Adam choosing to sin was just a bad roll of the dice.

Then, if I am reading your theology correctly, man was trapped from the get-go to fall into the pit of sin created by God.

No, God did not create sin. However, it was part of God's plan that man would sin, and God always gets what He wants. Man cannot thwart God's plan.

I believe you are tripping over your own theology. In the first paragraph you said it had to be. You didn't say, God allowed it, so it was a tossup. ..... Which is it: did God predetermine everything, including our choices, or not? If God predetermined our choices, then He is the author of them and we are simply the vessels who must obey.

God does predetermine everything, which means God allowing something does not make it a tossup. It is a difference of God acting versus choosing not to act. That is the difference in authorship. When we do good, God acts and gets the credit. When we sin, God does nothing, and we are to blame. So, when I sin I am not "obeying" God. He does not "move" me to sin.

If you must obey, you have no choice. If you obey God's will, regardless what your choice is, and you must, how is that a sin?

Sin is acting against God. It is our nature to do so before salvation. After salvation we still choose to so act from time to time. You can't obey a command you're not aware of. God does not move people to sin, He leaves them alone. Men act in accordance with God's will, they are not "obeying" when they sin. Men are following their own commands when they sin. That makes us accountable.

Choices always have parameters. Before salvation, those parameters are much narrower. After salvation, we are free and so our choice parameters broaden.

FK: "We follow our nature, unless it is changed by God."

And I thought you said we follow what God says we must do. Which is it, FK?

Both are true and consistent. We always follow our natures in accordance with God's plan. At salvation, our natures are changed. Where do you see a problem?

From what you are telling me sin is something that had to happen because God says so. If our rebellion and fall is the result of something God said must happen, knew it would happen, made sure it happens, then why is He 'offended?' I hope you realize you didn't answer my question.

God is offended, but He chose to "go through it" because He has greater good in mind. God chose to order the universe as He did, and that included sin in the world and His being offended at it. He could have ordered the universe differently, but He didn't.

(If you think this still doesn't answer your question, then just say so and I will try again. :)

[Kolokotronis]

"You were doing so well! Is it necessary to throw in such comments?"

Sorry, but, theological reality aside, that's just what it looked like, even to us in the East 100 years earlier. When the Eastern hierarchs came back to Constantinople from the Council of Florence, the reaction of the lower clergy and laity, both high and low born, was that they and the Empire had been delivered into the hands of "foreign overlords", not the loving embrace of the HMC. Quite aside from the sensitivities of the Protestants, there's a lesson here for Rome to remember as the discussions continue between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church.

[Forest Keeper]

And when God created Lucifer, did He predestine that Lucifer shall fall or not?

Yes, it was no accident. Omniscience means that when God created lucifer, He knew that if He did so exactly in the way He did, that the result would be as it happened. He chose to create anyway. When lucifer fell, God was not surprised.

Did Lucifer really have a "free choice" in his "rebellion" or was it something that, as FK says, God said must happen?

In all honesty, I don't know how to answer that. I don't know how grace works with angels. All I can say is that lucifer's fall was just as predestined as man's. No surprises to God, and God always gets what He wants.

May I remind you that Judaism considers Satan a loyal servant of God, and not a rebel?

Really? I've never heard that. Do you have a reference?

My impression is that Reformed Protestants either don't seem to realize that their theology implies that God is the author of sin, or they find it so threatening that they unconsciously deny it.

Our theology does not at all imply that God is the author of sin. It holds directly against that. Others choose to draw their own conclusions on our theology which are not in concordance with it. I hope that some recent posting has helped to shed some light on this.