'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

I'm sorry, I'm still confused.

I believe that the Canon of Scripture as shown in Protestant Bibles is the correct Canon.

Ok for you the Protestant Bible is God's canon. Catholics differ; hence, I'm naming them Catholic and Protestant canon in order to communicate.

By faith, I believe that the Canon of Scripture as shown in Protestant Bibles is the correct Canon.

So part of faith to you is faith in the Protestant canon as correct.

I do this based upon specific scriptural statements concerning God, salvation, life after death, etc. and knowing that God will not contradict Himself.

But this is different. If I'm understanding you, this is saying it's NOT taken solely on faith but upon an examination of the contents of possible books measured against the theology/teachings that you take on faith?

This would get back to my 3) before. Is every Christian then to revisit the history and translations, in light of their faith, to determine for themselves that the Protestant canon is God's canon? Or do they take it on faith when they join their respective churches, or on authority of those churches?

Thanks for your reply.

It's kind of fascinating . . .

when folks are sort of formally forced to be conscious of doing something in GOD'S PRESENCE . . . such as maybe ordinations or some such . . .

mention is sometimes to often made of man CONFIRMING formally and in ceremony what God has already done Spiritually and from His perspective.

Yet . . . at other times . . .

YEA VERILY, IT IS THE MAGICSTERICAL--WE OURSELVES--WHO HAVE MIGHTILY AND WISELY DONE IT BY OUR OWN WISDOM, LOFTY TRADITIONAL DISCERNMENT AND FORESIGHT (uhem--and no small amount of political cleverness and skill)!

I think that we would agree that God is the basis for truth. The Church does not create or manufacture truth, ... it simply transmits the truths that God has already revealed.

Of course. Christ promised He would reveal God's truth to us through this medium - the Apostolic community.

God promised (in Jeremiah 29) that all that sought Him ... would find Him. Is this the assurance you are looking for ?

Of course people will find God whom look. And as such, they will seek out His community as a result.

I do not believe that the Church has lost the truth. I just don't believe that the Catholic Church (or any other particular segment of the Church) ... has all of the truth.

Me neither. It has the fullness of God's revelation - but not all of it, because God has not revealed EVERYTHING to us yet.

When asked a question, or challenged, (as He often was) Jesus would always appeal to the scriptures (i.e. It is written, What saith the scriptures ..., Search the scriptures, etc.)

ALWAYS? He often times referred to HIMSELF as the Law, such as in Matthew 5 - "You have HEARD (NOTE, He doesn't say, 'you have read...') it said, but I tell you..."

To make scripture the basis for one's chrisitan life and ministry.

I am not aware of anything that Catholics do that is AGAINST Scripture. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, both being from God, cannot contradict.

There is obviously some caveat here ... for if the Apostles had rigidly followed the Pharisees ... they wouldn't have been following Jesus ... for the Pharisees opposed Jesus.

Jesus tells them to obey them, but not their hypocrisy. He is speaking of the Pharisees and their interpretation of the Law, not in who Jesus was.

Regards

And Catholics submit to whom ?

To the Head of the Body, Jesus Christ. However, we do so knowing that Christ left people in charge on earth over the community. That is pretty clear in the Scriptures.

The key difference ... is whom we find to be authoritative.

That is true. We hold to something outside of ourselves, and so we obey the Church which has been given authority to bind and loosen. Meanwhile, Protestants hold to their own personal interpretations, which is subject to change, depending on the mood that strikes them. I am sure that God presents Himself to people in this manner, but it is not the means He gave His apostles in the Scriptures.

Regards

What significant . . . theological truths of great centrality . . . are missing from the Protesty Canon?

Two questions: What would you consider a "theological truth of great centrality"?

And secondly, couldn't one take out one book out of Scripture and STILL get the message of a great theological truth? Does Scripture only point to such a great centrality in one place? Thus, with your attitude, we could really get rid of a lot of books of Scriptures...

Maybe the Holy Spirit will speak to a few people on this thread to let them know which ones we could take out of the Canon THIS century...

Regards

Faith is not blind faith, though many people's faith is blind. God has given us His Scripture and His Spirit in order to rightly interpret Scripture. He does this for EVERY believer, but not every believer takes advantage of it. In terms of the Canon, that some people accept by blind faith is evident. I think all of us did at first. However, our faith is affirmed when we read Scripture and see what IT TESTIFIES OF ITSELF. We believe the Words of Christ, Paul, Peter, James, Daniel, Moses, and all of the rest by Faith. We believe the Holy Spirit teaches by faith. We do not claim HUMAN infallibility but led the men of God who wrote Scripture in producing His Canon. It's God's Canon, not mans. Had there never been a council, there would still be a canon. If we don't believe it, there is still a canon. The Canon doesn't depend upon Man's affirmation of it. It is, since it is the written Word of God given by the plenary verbal inspiration of God. Regardless if I think Book X belongs in the Canon doesn't make it canonical or non-canonical. What makes it canonical is God's opinion of it. By faith, and by the affirmation of the Holy Spirit, I believe that when I pick up a Bible (Protestant for communication sake) I am reading Scripture. I do not do this blindly, for I have spent a lifetime becoming familiar with Scripture. When I see something that contradicts it, the red flag starts waving everywhere. But even at that I don't believe I have attained a Scriptural knowledge just by applying myself. Scripture says that the things of the Spirit are Spiritually discerned. I would be nowhere without the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

That is the best I can do at explaining why I believe that God established his Canon and believe that by faith.

Now, why do you believe that the Canon of Scripture did not exist until a group of Roman Catholic scholars got together in some council someplace declared what it was? Or, do you too believe that it existed as God inspired it and man's recognition of it makes no difference as far as canonicity? In other words, is your diagram

God---->Truth----->Scripture---->Man

or

Miscellaneous manuscripts containing truth claims----> Human intervention ---->Scripture?

And, if that is offensive to you (it is not meant to be), then at least admit this - you accept what you accept as Scripture by faith in the councils being led of God

I accept what I believe to be Scripture based upon faith in God's accessibility and willingness to reveal Himself (including His Word) to every believer regardless where they are and what their educational level is. My faith is affirmed by the portions of Scripture that I noted - which I believe are Scripture themselves, by faith.

we begin to realize that all is according to His plan and what we thought in the shadows was our free will was really God working out His plan...

It makes a difference if God makes our decisions or if we make our decisions according to His plan. In the former, we are robots; in the latter He knew from all eternity what our decisions would be. The latter makes us free and yet God's plan is certain and sovereign. In the former, it's God pulling the strings and we are just dummies.

The former is void of responsibility and accountability; the latter makes us accountable to God; and responsible for what we do. Sin is our burden, born out of our decisions, not God's.

God created man capable of being a moral being; capable is the operant term here. We are capable of immortality (by following God). We are capable of goodness (with God's help). But it has to come from our heart to come to Him. He knock but He doesn't compel.

If we are not free to give back freely what He gave us freely, there is no love in it.

The former paradigm breaks down because love is lacking. The latter has a potential because we are free to love God, if we so choose. If He created us such that we reject him then our rejection of Him is not our doing and there is no sin and no penalty due in rejecting God. It was predestined and unavoidable.

While what you say about the Plato's cave sounds very true, it is equally true that God breathed a human soul in each and every one of us and made us in His image — rational and free.

What you say about the people rather having "the rocks fall on them than to bow down to or acknowledge the authority of God" is precisely the source of our sin, the arrogance and pride for which there is only one cure: sincere humility.

Only the proud and the arrogant will not bow before God. God offends them. God insults their pride and their arrogance. God is the obstacle to their love of the world, self-importance, and material goods. But that's their choice, not God's.

Then there are those who use God to boost their pride; to boast of righteousness; the spiritual pride of those who are "high on God." The only "high" is their self-illusion. That is certainly not from God, but from them.

There is evil because God does not compel. But He is also our Light that illuminates our Way to reach the Truth. Let's not forget that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

One does not 'find' anything if he is predestined to get there, BD.

I think the LOVE issue IS a critical issue regarding "free will" vs "hyper predestination."

Scripture includes evidence of BOTH. Calvinists--particularly hyper Calvinists--seem loathe to treat the "free will" verses on their own merit as merely that. They seem compelled to bend them in some way to conform to hyper predestination.

I don't pretend to have it all figured out and am sure I won't this side of Heaven.

I don't know if God COULD have made it clearer to mere mortals. Perhaps such mysteries are beyond our finiteness.

I still like Walter Martin's computer as large as the universe analogy. At the level of the individual actor, there's a strong robust measure of free will. But the programmer also has free will to adjust things for His desired outcome.

I do know, that for authentic Love, there must be a REAL measure of REAL, authentic FREE WILL with applicable consequences. Nothing else makes sense, to me.

We are not totally free will creatures, clearly. Neither can we be total robots and share in and return a robust sort and degree of Love with Almighty God.

I think the presumptions about my attitude about removing any Scripture that I consider Scripture would be very erroneous presumptions, indeed.

I hold to protecting every jot and tittle. And have a lot of respect for those who wish to do so with what they consider Canon.

However, we have been backwards and forwards over the histories as we each understand them and we disagree.

And, great hostility seems to be thrown at us Protesties over the Apocrapha being missing from our Canon.

It just struck me that there must be some great spiritual truths in the missing pages that we must be missing out on for there to be so much intense hostility on their being gone from our Canon.

It's difficult for me to believe that Christian bretheren would throw such intense rocks at us over very minor to relatively minor additions to the Canon.

Alas, I seem to be mistaken. There do not appear to be any central truths of great raging import [that are not found in the books we do include]--there do not appear to be any great central truths of great raging import--either to my Salvation nor to my growing in Spiritual maturity in my Holy Spirit led walk daily with Daddy.

So all the molten lava rocks hurled at us over the missing pages are generated . . . not really in defense of something crucially missing from our Scriptures . . . . but out of . . . a very parochial pique?

A very authoritarian compulsive need to set all the errant serfs right???

Hard to fathom.

I'm trying to categorize the possible ways people accept/choose one group of books as canon. Focusing on this part.

In terms of the Canon, that some people accept by blind faith is evident.

Yes, I agree that is the primary situation. I qualified that earlier from blind faith to an informed decisions: We choose our church and canon simultaneously. I don't think this disagrees with your position here.

I think all of us did at first. However, our faith is affirmed when we read Scripture and see what IT TESTIFIES OF ITSELF.

This is both dependent on the canon and interpretation. Both sides in this claim this and proof text it. If your canon were different it would "testify of itself different."

What makes it canonical is God's opinion of it.

But I'm talking to Blogger and God's not registered on FR.. :). Obviously, B, it's us men and men before us arguing about what we think is God's opinion of what men wrote. We're stuck with that.

The Canon doesn't depend upon Man's affirmation of it.

I'm gonna disagree here. You're conflating God's Word with canon. We have the Word of God, this revealed, this written and THEN the canon. By definion "canon" is the group of written works accepted as genuine, authentic, inspired and true. By definition a canon a canon depends upon man's afirmation. Otherwise all writings are equally non-canonical.

God doesn't have group of written works some of which he considers His canon, some not..

why do you believe that the Canon of Scripture did not exist until a group of Roman Catholic scholars got together in some council someplace declared what it was?

I believe the canon is those writings accepted as the canon by the Church - by definition. Just as someone joining a Protestant Church accepts their canon.

I trust my authority, my Church on determining what is in the canon. I trust their knowledge of provenance and their spiritual knowledge of what Jesus and the Apostles taught in making their decisions on the canon.

You think the Reformers were right and knew better. I don't, so we have a difference in authority here.

Why isnt' God's acceptance sufficient for making it a Canon? I simply will not ascribe infallibility to human beings - be they Protestant or Catholic. If my faith is in humans to have gotten it right, then it is mere opinion since humans are not the creators of the truth. But, if my faith is in God to teach His people about what HE considers canonical then my faith is in the creator and embodiment of truth and is on a solid foundation.

The Reformers, while heroic in many aspects, were all too human. If my faith was in them it would be missplaced just as it would be if it were in any of the Church fathers and even the apostles themselves. Without the DIRECT involvement of God we have nothing to place our faith in. Paul would just be writing letters. Peter would just be giving advice to some people being picked on. No. God is the truth. He revealed the truth to the writers of the Bible and directly inspired what was said in the Scripture. Through His Scripture, the church learns about Him and His Will for humanity and themselves. Do you not think that a God who went through that kind of trouble would be a bit odd if He didn't then go the full way and teach His children what that Word was?

So, your authority is He taught the fathers and you live with that by faith.

I started off raised in a Baptist home, but as I said as I got older I determined to know WHY I believed what I believed not just blindly believe anything. Through many years of study and walking with God, I believe by Faith that the Holy Spirit has led me and I believe that such leadership is available to all Christians.

Still, the truth resides with the Lord Himself, not with the Church. The Church has often followed and obeyed the truth, but sometimes they haven't. Sometimes they have gotten depraved (both Protestant and Catholic sides). We would like for them to be perfect, but they are not. Neither are we.

One day, when I get to Heaven, I may find that I missed it on several things. I don't expect to get it all right. But my faith is in my God (not human beings) to lead me to know that which HE wants me to know. I hope it is the same for you and that your relationship with God is not just one where the church helps you reach out to one who can't be touched, but instead is one in which you feel His presence with You every day and Your heart overflows with love just knowing he is there, with you, leading you, guiding you, protecting you, and loving you.

When I was in high school, many moons ago, there was an in crowd and a crowd in the middle and then the "geeks". I was kind of in the middle. On our Senior trip the in crowd did some bad things which caused a lot of hurt and anger for several folks in the class. At that point God spoke to me very clearly in my spirit and said "Don't look at the people. The People will let you down every time. Look at me. I will never fail you." I have never forgotten that. And, be it a pastor, a Sunday School teacher, a family member, or a church council I keep in mind that people are people. They fail. Look to God. He does not.

We must be miscommunicating here and it's likely my fault.

Why isnt' God's acceptance sufficient for making it a Canon?

Because we don't have God's list. A canon is a subset of religious writing selected, listed, by men as part of a canon.

I simply will not ascribe infallibility to human beings - be they Protestant or Catholic.

Then you're forced to figure out the canon on your own again. But, alas, you're fallible too. Unless you have something unavailable to any other men?

if my faith is in God to teach His people about what HE considers canonical then my faith is in the creator and embodiment of truth and is on a solid foundation.

Well this is different than "God's Canon" isn't it? It's God's canon as taught to humans - fallible humans that you have faith, or discern, were taught what is to be in the canon by God.

You seem to want to remove men from the process and you can't. At the very least there's you.

I appreciate your reply and passion and sincerity, but I can't follow your logic here on the basic points. We have a canon of scriptures because of and through - at some point - human beings. Finite human beings.

A lot of other factors can be debated here, who chose correctly, whose understanding of what Jesus taught is correct, who was most spiritually pure and closest to God, who truly were guided by the Holy Spirit, etc., etc. But we cannot get around the fact that at some points between the Word of God, God's revelation to me, men's writing and authorized canon are men.

You explained why Luther could doubt the inspired character of the Deuterocanon, but you do not explain why did he take the unprecedented step of declaring them uninspired, and why did his followers remove them completely.

It wasn't unprecedented at all. Jerome among others "declared" them uninspired. Luther included them in his version in a separate section and said in the preface:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

That is kinder than I would have been. :) BD has posted several articles on this thread exposing the weaknesses of these books, including the issue with the Jewish canon, provable historical inaccuracies, and contradictions with established scripture.

But as I posted to Joe recently, I find it absolutely amazing that in the 10,000 posts here and the 12,000 on the L&E thread that I have seen Apostolics quote from the Dueterocanonicals MAYBE 3 times altogether. And you guys aren't shy about quoting, which is as it should be. I have seen the evidence myself as to how important and authoritative YOU all think the Dueterocanonicals are.

Your problem is with the English translation of the Greek verb "pluck" or "snatch". The form is one for a third party actor. The Greek is only referring to third parties, FK, not ourselves and says absolutely nothing about falling out of God's hand, or jumping out, or "plucking oneself" out, all of which could have been said but weren't.

But this interpretation defies other scripture. In all of the "sheep verses", is there an example of one of Christ's sheep wandering away to be lost permanently? I'm not aware of one. Christ's sheep are believers:

John 10:14 : 14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

John 10:26 : ... but you do not believe because you are not my sheep .

Luke 15:3-7 : 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep .' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Did Jesus practice what He preached? :) Did He go after and retrieve ALL of His lost sheep? In addition, you are right that it says nothing about jumping out or plucking oneself out, but that's because it would make no logical sense. Throughout these verses we have the father-child motif going. Under the interpretation you state we have a father who would go to all lengths to prevent anyone else from harming his child. However, if the child decided to harm himself the father would stand idly by and do nothing to save him. This bears zero resemblance to human experience. As parents, don't we know that our children perhaps MOST often need protection from themselves? :) Here, under this interpretation, God falls down on the job when He's needed most.

Thanks for the link to "The People of God, An Orthodox Perspective". I didn't read every word, but I think I got the general idea :

The identity of the "people of God" as being the elect, or called by God, is manifested in the fellowship (koinonia) they have with Christ.

In a way of thinking, this sounds reasonable and there were other similar quotes. I did get the impression that the determination of the elect within time isn't made until after death in the vast majority of cases so this would tend to shy away from even the RCC view of election based on foreknowledge. It didn't seem to me that individuals were elected as such, but rather groups were. People could flow in and out of those groups.

The Tradition is what produced the New Testament. If your reading does not match the consensus patrem, who knew the Tradition from Christ or nearly directly from Christ, your reading is not the intended meaning, ...

Well, I certainly believe that the Apostles, et al. wrote what they taught orally until they wrote, so in that sense I can agree. However, you are jumping ahead when you bring in consensus patrums. Yours is another statement showing that God's word, as He wanted it written, does not reveal the true faith. Catholics have as much as admitted to me that the Bible is of little value to one without the lens of your church.

This shows what I believe to be the Catholic attitude that one should not look to the Bible first to find Christianity, but rather one should look first to the Fathers' interpretations of the Bible to find Christianity. The appearance is that you're saying "don't take the Apostles' words for it, go with the interpretations of those words by the Church". Of course, this is untenable to us. :)

Ah, so to reject the principles of the original reformers is to reject scripture?

Generally, yes.

Why don't you say what you really mean, that the Reformers have their own unwritten tradition, and so a reading of the scripture that is contrary to that particular tradition is anathema?

I think I already said what I really mean. What sort of unwritten tradition are you talking about? All of the theological tradition I can think of right now is written.

The Protestants who are for gay marriage would vehemently disagree that they reject the scripture, and they would argue their position form scripture. I know -- I argued with them.

I'm sure they would attempt to make a scriptural argument. You and I might have a good laugh over it. What has this to do with me or other Reformers? I mean, my position is that Reformed theology is correct! :) So, when someone tries to make a Biblical pro-homosexual agenda argument, my position is that they are not following scripture. What is the controversy here? :)

FK: "I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought."

Who will crush the Serpent, and seed of which woman is He?

Christ will crush the serpent as the seed of Eve in that He is her descendant. Verse 15 compares the offspring of the woman and satan. If 15 meant Mary then there's only one offspring, according to Catholics. This would mean only one offspring for satan also, i.e. the anti-christ. Does it really make sense for God to announce that FROM NOW ON, Christ will have enmity for the spawn of satan? This makes no sense since satan was already banished at this point.

In addition, to take your view, one has to say that in verse 13, "the woman" meant Eve, in verse 15 "the woman" meant Mary, and in verse 16 "the woman" meant Eve again. That's not reasonable.

If anything, verse 15 could have meant "any" or "all" women generally, but not Mary individually. What makes much more sense was that God was speaking of the "progeny" of them both (either Eve or all women). Sinners and saints were going to live in conflict with each other.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.