![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Vatican premiere of “The Nativity Story” movie
I attended tonight the world premiere of the new film “The Nativity Story”. It was shown to a full house in the Paul VI audience hall in the Vatican. Having the premiere of a film like this was a first for the Vatican. The woman Catherine Hardwicke (Tombstone, Three Kings, Vanilla Sky) who directed it was in attendance, as well as Secretary of State Tarcisio Card. Bertone (Archbp. Vercelli, Secretary CDF, Archbp. Genoa) was there, though not the Holy Father (Archbp. Munich, Prefect CDF). Also we saw in the hall the writer Mike Rich (Finding Forrester, The Rookie), the actor who played Joseph, Oscar Isaac, and the woman who played Elizabeth, Shohreh Aghdashloo.
If you are expecting stark realism in the film, you will not be disappointed. If you are expecting classic images of mangers and Wise Men with camels, …you will not be disappointed.
The film juxtaposed very realistic, even naturalistic scenes with scenes overlaid with classic images of the Nativity narrative, which snobs and scholars might turn their lifted noses at, but which I think should please most viewers, as they did me.
The makers of the movie did not shy from using images one nearly automatically associates with the Christmas narrative. There are Wise Men, right out of your Nativity scene and named Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar, with camels and garish boxes. They follow the star, “moving” in the sense that planets are converging,. and the star obligingly shoots a comforting ray of light down into the animal stall while Mary is in labor. The Holy Family has a faithful little donkey and the Blessed Virgin a blue mantle, though of a very light shade. Herod is really a bad guy who will remind you of a Semitic version of Braveheart’s Edward Longshanks. The music incorporated snatches of well-known melodies such as Veni veni Emanuel and The Coventry Carol. The angel of the Annunciation was suitably luminous and the shepherds sufficiently humble.
The text of the Magnificat worked as bookends in the film and, while our version of the movie was dubbed in Italian with English subtitles, I expect the final scene, interlacing the Magnificat with strains of Stille Nacht, may move many to tears.
In fact, the audience tonight was very responsive. They burst into applause when the baby Jesus was born, as one might expect, and laughed at the appropriate moments of comic relief, provided not terribly subtly by the three Wise Guys, er um, Men. In fact their humorous repartee is sets up their glorious expressions of faith at the moment of truth. I was up in the press area and there were some studio nazis from New Line present to make sure no one was recording anything or taking images from the showing. They freaked out when people in the audience began shooting flash pictures of the screen at predictable moments, and began making hurried cell phone calls.
The film did not lack suggestions of the difficulty women faced in the ancient world. The political dimension of the expected Messiah was mentioned several times. A serious thread found its way into the Nativity narrative with the occasional glimpse of men crucified along the side of the road.
I do not want to speak too much of the actual details of dialogue or portrayal of the biblical figures. Make up your own minds. Suffice to say that in the brief time of the film the script allows for some very strong character development, making them more than simple two dimensional figures. I particularly liked their Joseph, who was young, strong, and normal man striving to be virtuous and… well… normal.
I do not think you will be disappointed by the movie. I give it a biretta tip … o{]:¬)
Before the showing, there was a little speech in Italian by Archbishop John Foley, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communication followed by a longish reading in Italian from the Gospel of Luke from the Nativity narrative by Gigi Proietti. Archbp. Foley, for his part after his Italian text, spoke more extemporaneously for a moment in English. He said, “At a time when in so many places people are hesitant to say ‘Merry Christmas’, they are hesitant to say the name of Jesus Christ, we are happy to celebrate here this evening a film in which we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, the God Man, the Savior of the world, born of the Virgin Mary. … We can say, even a month before hand, may all of you have a Merry Christmas. Buon Natale a tutti.”
I heard that Mary is shown having labor pains. True? And that Anne and Joachim rebuke her for being pregnant.
Comment by dcs — 26 November 2006 @ 11:23 pmdcs: I am not going to go into details.
However, yes, Mary has labor pains, though without all the dramatic screaming. I think it is reasonable that Mary had labor pains (which I am guessing from the fact that you asked the question you think she shouldn’t have had). We are, after all, not monophysites or docetists, right? Also, we don’t have a lot of information (read: we have NO information) from Scripture about any opinion Mary’s parents might have had.
I am somewhat less than enthusiastic about any film portrayal of biblical themes, especially when the films verge on error. Such is the case of Franco Zeffirelli’s exaggerated shrieking by Mary at the moment of the deposition: she completely lost control in that film. While labor pains are reasonable, lots of uncontrolled shrieking is not. Although...
I don’t think there was anything over the line in the film tonight.
The film has images and moments people have come to expect from Nativity scenes, but if you are looking for a baroque painting from start to finish, this won’t be your film.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 26 November 2006 @ 11:38 pmThe BBC is reporting that the 16-year old actress who played the Virgin Mary in the film is pregnant…
Comment by Geoffrey — 27 November 2006 @ 1:00 amGeoffrey: And your point?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 27 November 2006 @ 1:14 amFr. Z: In fairness to dcs I don’t think that he was thinking of monophysitism or docetism but simply the doctrine that Mary was free from the stain of original sin and thus presumably free from its effects (although that latter part would be a conclusion from the dogmatic declaration not itself part of that declaration). Since pain in childbirth is, according to Gen.2, one of the consequences of original sin and Our Lady was conceived immaculately it is not a great stretch to conclude that she did not suffer in childbirth. There is also, of course, the citation from St. Augustine that the Christ Child passed out of Mary’s womb as a ray of light passes through a pane of glass. There is also the issue of Mary being virgin ‘in partu’ which many Fathers equated with her physical integrity.
Comment by Matthew — 27 November 2006 @ 1:28 amPAX
I don’t want to make an issue of the “labor pains” but our priest at Mass today did. He claimed that showing Mary having labor pains was heretical. This was news to me. I understood “Mary, ever Virgin” as referring to Mary’s never having sexual relations either before or after the birth of Jesus. Our priest implied that it also refers to the process with which Mary gave birth. Can you explain?
Comment by Catholic Mom — 27 November 2006 @ 1:32 amIn all fairness… auctores scinduntur. Also, this is a movie, not a theological treatise.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 27 November 2006 @ 1:32 amGee, Father, I just wandered over from The Curt Jester, and I love your blog! Thanks for writing it!
Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? — 27 November 2006 @ 3:50 amhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
....that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.
Comment by Anonymous — 27 November 2006 @ 5:16 amWell, I think heresey may be pushing it , but yes, Scripture does say that labour pains are a punishment for
Comment by Jason Cebalo — 27 November 2006 @ 6:07 amoriginal sin. Also, a number of early chirstian writings speak of Our Lady giving birth without labour p
Sorry, that should have read “labour pains”
Comment by Jason Cebalo — 27 November 2006 @ 6:08 amTHE POPE HAS SPOKEN
http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=546&Itemid=83
Born of the Virgin Mary
By Msgr. Charles M. Mangan
……Pope John Paul II, on May 24, 1992 at the conclusion of the International Study Conference that commemorated the 16th Centenary of the Plenary Council of Capua which considered Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, commented: “... some Church Fathers set up a significant parallel between the begetting of Christ ex intacta Virgine (from the intact Virgin) and His resurrection ex intacto sepulchro (from the intact tomb).. . the Church proclaims as factually true that Mary… truly and virginally gave birth to her Son, for Whom she remained a virgin after birth; a virginâ€â€according to the holy Fathers and Councils which expressly dealt with the question . . . also in everything which concerns the integrity of the flesh . . . .” (L’Osservatore Romano (English edition), June 10, 1992, page 14).
Comment by Kimmy — 27 November 2006 @ 6:09 amIt sounds very good, Father. I’m interested to hear about the faithful family donkey. Hope the movie comes to India, soon.
Comment by Kevin — 27 November 2006 @ 6:19 amI could be wrong but…
To the woman he said, “I will GREATLY MULTIPLY your pain in childbearing…” Genesis 3:16 RSV-CE 2nd ed.
0×10 = 0 No pain to multiply equals no pain.
1×10 = 10 Ten times greater than the original pain.
It would seem that pain was present in child birth to some extent before the fall, no matter how small – and that it was “greatly multiplied” after the fall.
Otherwise it would seem that God would have said “I will give you pain in childbearing…”
St. Luke also said: “She gave birth…” Seems like he might have communicated something more miraculous if Mary said it had happened. I mean if she told the disciples about the Annunciation, why not a miraculous child birth?
I’m just not sure how a pre-fall natural childbirth with pre-fall “labor pains” would negate anything theologically, in particular the Immaculate Conception.
Again, I humbly submit that I could be wrong and leave open that Almighty God did and can do whatever He wants.
Comment by Campidoctoris de Anathematis — 27 November 2006 @ 6:49 amAnother wanderer from the Curt Jester here. _
Comment by Melody — 27 November 2006 @ 8:39 amI would agree with Campidoctoris de Anathematis. While I may be truly in error, it seems that unless the birth was truly supernatural Mary gave birth in normal fashion. I submit that she likely had a very easy birth compared to others. However, it would seem logical that Our Lord came into this world at a healthy weight and size. I do not wish to be crude about such a delicate subject, but does that not imply some labor?
Am I the only one who does not equate the Holy Mother’s perpetual virginity with having an intact hyman? Many a chaste and virginal woman loses hers through athletics and other things.
I, too, wandered here via Curt Jester.
Thank you for this fine review. I was wondering if I should take our family to see this movie, and you’ve helped me to decide: I want to see it! how often does anyone produce anything these days you can take the whole family to? I think this would make a wonderful family Advent adventure, and give us all something visual to share and talk about. Thanks, Father.
Comment by Nancy Brown — 27 November 2006 @ 11:35 amKimmy: That citation provided by my friend Msgr. Mangan, in turn quoting the late Holy Father, does not really provide any support for or against the possibility that the Blessed Virgin experienced pains from child birth.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 27 November 2006 @ 11:56 amFather, I’m being terribly unfair to you by my vagueness in this matter, but I half-remember one of the Fathers suggesting that Our Lady was spared labour pains at the time of Our Lord’s birth, but that she somehow experienced them by her sharing in His pain during the crucifixion. Does that ring any bells with you? I’m going to have to look through my books to find this because that is a beautiful idea.
Comment by Zadok the Roman — 27 November 2006 @ 12:50 pmZadok: Yes, that rings a bell. I am digging at this question now.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 27 November 2006 @ 1:06 pmFather,
Comment by Victor — 27 November 2006 @ 2:21 pmyou might want to check the visions of St Birgitta of Sweden. If I remember correctly, she very thoroughly describes the birth of OL&S by the Virgin Mary: Mary was kneeling and praying, and the child Jesus suddenly appeared on a cloth before her (I always imagine it like a StarTrek-like beaming). Of course, St Birgitta is not doctrinal, but still…
Zadok the Roman and Fr. Zuhlsdorf, I had not heard that point about Our Lady suffering labour pains at Jesus’ crucifixion. I look forward to learning more. The truth is important. If it is the truth (as I believe) that God’s gift to Our Lady was her perpetual virginity, then we must proclaim that truth. It is my understanding that labour pains are caused by the woman’s body preparing to expel the child through the birth canal and continue through that process. Most protestants that I have known have believed that our Blessed Lady was not a virgin during or AFTER the birth of Jesus, so this film could confirm them in their error and perhaps even lead people to think that the Church is rethinking her teaching. So maybe it is important that if Catholics say that the film is good, we should also proclaim our belief in Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.
Comment by ellen — 27 November 2006 @ 2:41 pmWe’re Not Alone…
ATHER Zuhlsdorf posts a review of the new film on Our Lord’s Nativity and gets taken to the cleaners by Uberpious Roman Catholics because he opines that the BVM might …
Trackback by Sarx: GenX@40 — 27 November 2006 @ 3:14 pmI was engaged in this argument once – about Mary’s labor pains.
I couldn’t find anything in terms of magisterial teaching
on the subject. What I did find was a lot of theological
opinion.
Here’s my take: There are three ‘curses’ given to the folks
in the garden. You will bear children in pain, you will have
to work for a living, you will die. Jesus was obviously also
free from original sin, but he certainly worked for a living and
he most certainly died. If that was true about him, why
would his birth (and Mary’s pains) have been any different?
Also, as Catholics, we don’t take the story in Genesis 3 as
Comment by Cathy — 27 November 2006 @ 3:18 pmliterally, factually true. These etiologies are part of the
mythic structure of the text. There is theological truth
there, certainly. (Original sin is one doctrine that seems to be
empirically proven.) But we don’t have to believe in the
snake, etc. We know how human beings evolved, and they
evolved with large brain cases which cause their mothers
some effort in giving them birth.
The Immaculate Conception was spared from the stain of Original Sin, but she was obviously not spared from all of its effects. The fact that she experienced pain in her life is de fides.
St. Birgitta was a human being like us with her own prejudices and “preconceptions”. As Father Groeschel points out very strongly in his book “A Still Small Voice” about visions, they are all “filtered” through the visionary’s limitations, and they very much get it wrong at times.
Our Lord was “a man like us in all things save sin”. How many of us were miraculously “teleported” from our mother’s wombs?
Comment by Kent Wendler — 27 November 2006 @ 3:33 pmCathy:
And . . . what the Lord God said to the first couple weren’t “curses”—they were God revealing the consequences of eating from the tree of knowlege of GOOD AND BAD: Now God was telling them what some of those good and bad things were:
childbirth (good) + pain (bad)
desire for husband (good) + his domination (bad)
food, work (good) + struggle, thistles (bad)
The noteworthy thing is how Adam and Eve react (or rather, don’t react), at the end of the Lord’s statements to them. Go read it: they don’t act as though they’ve just had unrelenting curses laid upon them. In fact, what Adam says clearly reveals he’s focusing on one of the GOOD things.
Comment by Fr Martin Fox — 27 November 2006 @ 3:38 pmFr. Martin,
I wasn’t using ‘curses’ in the sense that God curses us. I was
using it in the sense of the Ancient Near East covenant
documents: “This is what happens if you obey….(blessings)and
“This is what happens if you don’t….(curses)” But of course
God is beyond all that. It is just that it is written in the
human language of the time and I don’t think that they would
have necessarily made the distinction between curses and consequencecs,
much as small children don’t necessarily make the distinction
between ‘consequences’ and ‘punishment.’
Thanks for making the clarification.
Cathy
Comment by Cathy — 27 November 2006 @ 3:45 pmMost animals do not appear to suffer the kind of pain in childbirth that humans do, but there is clearly some kind of effort. Similarly, the Blessed Mother might not have suffered agonies in childbirth, but still have felt it, just has her divine Son experienced hunger in the desert, or sadness at the death of Lazarus, or fatigue that led Him to sleep in the boat on the sea of Galilee. As for the “tokens of virginity,” virginity in ordinary women is not synonymous with an intact hymen. I know a woman, a virgin at marriage, who ruptured hers by a fall as a little girl (her mother reminded her of this before her wedding, and told her to make sure to reassure her husband). So Mary was a virgin regardless of physical condition, since she had not known man. Certainly it is possible—since with God all things are possible—that her Son passed through the hymen by some supernatural means, or that God restored it after He had been born, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Indeed the first possibility suggests Docetism, since at all other times Jesus’ mortal body (as opposed to the risen body) is subject to the normal laws of nature and did not pass through any solid objects. As for the second—why? Who would notice one way or the other? Not St. Joseph, because they never had intercourse, and not any other man. The notion of SS. Joachim and Anna’s reaction is interesting. The first response of St. Joseph suggests that they, too, might have come to the same conclusion. I suppose that when St. Joseph said he’d go ahead with the wedding they were content; or perhaps God revealed something to them as He did to him and apparently to St. Elizabeth.
Comment by Henry Dieterich — 27 November 2006 @ 4:08 pmThat Our Lady is a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus is part of the deposit of faith. The Virgin Birth or virginity of Mary during the birth of Jesus is absolutely beyond debate for Catholics. The Council of the Lateran (649) reads:
“If anyone does not profess according to the holy Fathers that in the proper and true sense the holy, ever-Virgin, Immaculate Mary is Mother of God, since in this last age, not with human seed but of the Holy Spirit, She properly and truly conceived the divine Word, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and gave him birth without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolable even after his birth: let such a one be condemned.”
Subsequent magisterial texts make it clear that “virginity during birth” includes everything that is proper to physical virginity. The idea that Our Lady’s virginity during birth is merely spiritual or actualized because She conceived virginally does square with Church teaching. Thus, gynecological explanations are out of place, and the inference that the birth was painless is simply based on the fact that it was miraculous. I am not going to pretend to tell you how it happened, but logic is logic.
Niether am not one to confuse art and theology, but even from an artistic point of view, I do not see the advantage of naturalizing the most supernatural event that ever occurred. I know I will be told that mothers have more to identify with in a naturalistic representation, but in reality far more is to be lost than gained. Our heavenly Mother can help us so much, because She is really different.
I have been involved in discussions on this topic a number of times before. I always like to reference the homily of St. John Chrysostom for Christmas morning:
“Though I know that a Virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learned to venerate in silence, and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech. For with God we look not for the order of nature, but rest our faith in the power of Him who works.”
Comment by Father Angelo — 27 November 2006 @ 4:23 pmSt. Thomas Aquinas states in “Summa Theologicae” that the lack of an intact hymen does not invalidate virginity.
“That a physical membrane is unbroken is incedental to virginity, which persists because of the will’s purpose to abstain from sex-pleasure. If it happens not to be intact from sme other cause, this is no more prejudicial to virginity than damage to a hand or foot.” Summa Theologiae 2a2ae. 152, 1
Comment by Domini Sumus — 27 November 2006 @ 4:43 pmContext is everything. St. Thomas in 2a2ae. 152, 1 is speaking about the VIRTUE of virginity, and nowhere applies his comments about the lack of physical integrity to the event of the Virgin Birth. The idea of “virginal integrity” appears over and over in magisterial documents concerning the Virgin Birth, and the tradition is clear as to its meaning. Is the Virgin Birth any more difficult to believe than the Virginal Conception? Remember, the Holy Spirit is NOT the father of Jesus. Jesus is conceived by the power of Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, without father. That is the doctrine. You can’t explain it. It is miraculous.
Comment by Father Angelo — 27 November 2006 @ 5:09 pmHenry Dieterich said,”As for the “tokens of virginity,†virginity in ordinary women is not synonymous with an intact hymen.” Your opinion may have validity but that the church teaches quite specifically that the Mother of God retained all aspects of her virginity.
Comment by Irulats — 27 November 2006 @ 5:18 pmCf. Creed of the Council of Toledo XVI (693): DS 571
And as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also she experienced no loss of her integrity; for she conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin.
Yours in Christ.
Catholics don’t doubt that Mary is a virgin, perpetually, before, during and after the birth of the Lord. That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not she experienced pains in childbirth. Some think yes, some think no. There are arguments on both sides. But we are not in disagreement about her perpetual virginity.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 27 November 2006 @ 5:25 pmFather Angelo says, miracles have no natural explanation. The fact is. however, that Mary is a woman, not a goddess. The second Eve had to endure endure suffering, in tribute to the first. Perhaps, and here I speculate. she had to experience pain at the beginning. the common lot of mankind, for the sake of mankind. It was part of the choice she made. Certainly she suffered with us, or do we call her Our Lady of Sorrows for nothing.
Comment by John Schuh — 27 November 2006 @ 5:39 pmI acknowledge Father Z.’s caution, and beg indulgence of further answer to my esteemed objectors.
For the record, St. Thomas in the Summa (II IIae, q. 164, a. 2, ad 3), where he discusses the punishments for original sin, states:
“For any woman who conceives must needs suffer sorrows and bring forth her child with pain: except the Blessed Virgin, who “conceived without corruption, and bore without pain” [St. Bernard, Serm. in Dom. inf. oct. Assum. B. V. M.], because her conceiving was not according to the law of nature, transmitted from our first parents.”
Secondly, indeed, miracles have no natural explanation. This particular miracle, viz., the Virgin Birth, points to the divinity of Christ. The patristic datum is that if a virgin conceives and bears a son, as Isaiah says, then that child is God. I would respectfully submit that the tradition has always been careful on this point, as the content and meaning of the Virgin Birth is easily vacated if we submit it to scientific analysis or criticism of other sorts.
Finally, St. Bonaventure neatly brings together the mystery of Our Lady’s sorrows and the Christmas event in the pithy statement: “That which in the Nativity She brought forth with joy, in the Passion She gave birth to with sorrow” (Commentary on Luke, c. 23). Our Lady does have pain in childbirth, but only at the foot of the cross as Mother of the Church.
Comment by Father Angelo — 27 November 2006 @ 6:11 pmFather Angelo: Can I add this more recent comment?
Bl. Pope Pius IX in his encyclical on the Immaculate Conception A diem laetissimum, 2 Feb 1904
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 2