'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/

[kosta50]

I have Augustine's Retractions (took a bit of work to find one), and it is funny how no one, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, really likes that book

Maybe that's why this book is out of circulation for all practical purposes.

[kosta50]

In one sense, what we are remains what it was otherwise Jesus is not what we proclaim He is, True God and True Man. At the same time, we are not what we were, for we were not created to sin

We are no longer like God. Our restoration (salvation) is in becoming Christ-like, as we were created to be.

We are "damaged goods," not the way were designed and created. Our TRUE humanity is having not just the image (dominion) but also the likeness of God. So, when we say that Christ is a true God an true Man, we mean that He is man as God created him (pre-fall).

[redgolum]

Here is the only place I could find Retractions for under $100.

http://www.amazon.com/Fathers-Church-St-Augustine-Retractions/dp/0813209706/sr=8-1/qid=1165881423/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5503680-8500037?ie=UTF8&s=books

It is a great little book, that throws a bit of light on some of the inter family fights we Western Christians have.

[kosta50]

Thank you. I will make it my Christmas gift.

[annalex]

it is part of the same thought

bind and loose means to legislate. Both Peter and the apostles got that power. The key is to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a different power, that to direct people to heaven and open is to them. When you compare the two "bind and loose" passages, the first one is in the context fo salvation, the second is in the context of dispute resolution. Two different, albeit related, things.

1) confront him one on one 2) Bring a witness and if he still doesn't repent 3) bring him before the church - the church being the local body of believers.

No, it does not compute. The local body of believers was covered by (2). (3) here is something else: a Church capable of uniform decision that determines just excommunication. It cannot be local. It has therefore to be hierarchical.

The Corinthians dealt with their erring brother not by going through an ecclesiastical order, but by dealing with it as a local church body themselves.

This is what S.t Paul had to say to them:

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church. 18 As if I would not come to you, so some are puffed up. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will: and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power. 21 What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?

(1 Cor 4)

Here we have an apostle ready to assert temporal power through his bishop over a local church.

Your examples from the Acts sometime use the "church" in other senses. But we have enough scripture, as well as the practices of the Early Church, to say that it was hierarchical.

beyond Pentecost, Peter's role is somewhat tame compared to his role in the gospels.

Why is it dispositive as to his role as pope? He is the connection to Christ's ministry on earth. Paul cannot claim it, and the other apostles were clearly subordinate to Peter, given the keys and the "feed my sheep" episodes. Peter did not have to evengelize anyone at that point. He was however, the root making all the evangelizing work possible. It also doesn't matter if he ever was in Rome, -- althouigh we have archaelogical evidence that he was. Papacy does not come from Rome, or Avignon, or any other particular place. It comes from Christ's charge to Peter.

[annalex]

It would most likely result in another birth. Bros and sisters are mentioned

That was discussed at length on this thread. Brothers and sisters is generic reference to kinsfolk. Oftne, when a name of the suppsed brother is given we find out that in fact he was a son of another woman, -- check Mary Cleopas toward the end of the gospel of Mark.

That would make her God's wife, which she isn't.

Says who? The Church calls her the Spouse of the Holy Spirit (and a Mother of God). For a good, scriptural reason. If you disagree, well, you are entitled to your opinion. My argument is that in the economy of salvation the presence of other children by Mary would have been an illogical bizarre turn of events. God does not work that way.

[annalex]

the Orthodox put scripture a notch higher than extra-scriptural material. Is that correct? If so, then the same cannot be said of Catholicism

I think our views on that are identical. The scripture is, of course, the inspired and inerrant word of God that is especially useful in disputed such as this one, and in that sense it is "a notch higher", but it is a subset of Tradition nevertheless.

Her womb became the Tabernacle? The Tabernacle was a holy place of worship. Is that what Mary's womb became?

You better beleive it. Of course. Her womb, as the Tabernacle, contained the Word of God.

[Kolokotronis]

"See, that is the problem. In some ways, how "man" is defined DID change. Neither of you, Catholic or Orthodox, would say that left alone with no input a society can be moral with out God. Mankind, after he removes revealed and natural law, can be the most horrible monster imaginable. Is that what we were from the pre fall Adam?

But at the same time, we are the same. Otherwise the Incarnation would be meaningless, and we would not be saved. What makes us human, in essence, must be the same as what made Adam human."

What no one on this thread has mentioned is how sin has distorted all of creation, not simply man. The universe was created to be, as God Himself observed, good. And yet we see that it is not good at all. It is not merely impersonal; it can be profoundly destructive of good. And all of that is caused by the burden of sin. Creation doesn't work any better than we do and for the same reason, but like us and through us who have dominion over the world, on account of the Incarnation, it too can be restored to its proper form.

The Desert Fathers give us many examples of this transformation of the distorted natural order being restored simply by the presence of holiness. The story of +Gerasimos and the Lion springs to mind.

[Blogger]

Friend, The Binding and Loosing are directly tied to the keys to the Kingdom by Christ Himself. He says to Peter, I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven - and whatsoever...shall be bound in heaven... The thought is one continuing thought. He then repeats it later in Scripture. It does not have to be legislative. It can mean a variety of things.

If you look at Scripture, you have many examples:

Colossians 3:14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Hebrews 2 Warning to Pay Attention 1We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

Matthew 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Binding and loosing are not related to saving a soul. Only God saves. Only God draws. Only God regenerates.

Here is something else: a Church capable of uniform decision that determines just excommunication. It cannot be local. It has therefore to be hierarchical.
Tell that to the the millions who exist in exactly such structures. Our local church votes on church discipline as did the Corinthians. It didn't have to go to a hierachical structure. Paul instructed the local church to expel the immoral brother. Yes, we have leaders. But those leaders are accountable to God and us as the body of Christ. Those leaders can not get together in a council of other leaders and disposess us of church membership. It takes the local body to decide that something has merited excommunication (which only removes you from local church membership, not the universal body of Christ if you were ever a part of it).

Here we have an apostle ready to assert temporal power through his bishop over a local church.
While it is true,Paul is as an overseer over this church - we never see Paul in a legislative role deciding church discipline. He advises them. He counsels them. He does not lord power over them. Corinth was one messed up church. Paul is coming on a visit and is basically saying am I going to scold you or love on you. He isn't saying by the power vested in me as bishop, you're about to get whacked and believe-you-me I have the power to do it. In fact, where do we see that Paul was a Bishop or that he had power over the bishop? Certainly, he was extremely influential. That can not be overstated. He mentors Timothy and others. Even though he isn't the Pastor, he shepherds various local flocks. But, you don't see him in any kind of a formal hierarchical role. Rather,Paul was basically a missionary and a pastoral mentor.

Your examples from the Acts sometime use the "church" in other senses. But we have enough scripture, as well as the practices of the Early Church, to say that it was hierarchical.

Okay, I think I see where the confusion is here. The term church. When the Bible refers to the church, the bride of Christ, it is that great universal body of all believers - not a centralized organization. Paul writes to people. He doesn't write to an organization. He praises or admonishes people. That is one (very common) definition of who is the church. When John writes, it is the same...to the church which is at Ephesus doesn't refer to a hierarchical organization, but to a group of believers that live in Ephesus. At the time of his writing, many probably didn't even have a formal meeting place much less a centralized authority to report to.

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."- Here the church is seen as the group of people that Jesus purchased. Jesus in turn does appoint overseers, or undershepherds to help guide His local flock. Sometimes, on rare occasion, you do have the equiv. of an associational meeting where some point is to be decided and all of the overseers and apostles as well as non-officed people get together to talk.

However, there is no Scriptural evidence (or even early historical evidence) that the church (all saved people) was set up so that it would ultimately report to a centralized organization. There were bishops at Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem. But they were local. The early bishops did not yield to Rome. That came later. Each overseer tended to his own area. And the local bodies, led by the Holy Spirit and their local leadership would be the ones usually making decisions. Occasionally a Paul or Peter would provide guidance and influence. But it was mostly taken care of locally.

Why is it dispositive as to his role as pope? He is the connection to Christ's ministry on earth.
We have Christ one on one. Why do we need a third party? Likewise, we have the sweet Holy Spirit. Why pray to a human to intercede?

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Paul cannot claim it, and the other apostles were clearly subordinate to Peter, given the keys and the "feed my sheep" episodes.

Sorry. It's not a clear as you would like it to be. And apparently, Paul never recognized "it" since he never made mention in his many letters that Peter was the head of Christ's church on earth. Neither did anyone else.

Peter did not have to evengelize anyone at that point.
Jesus commanded him and the other believers in Matthew 28 to do so. So, yes, I believe to be obedient, he had to evangelize and disciple.

He was however, the root making all the evangelizing work possible.
Scripture?

It also doesn't matter if he ever was in Rome, -- althouigh we have archaelogical evidence that he was.
What evidence?

Papacy does not come from Rome, or Avignon, or any other particular place. It comes from Christ's charge to Peter.

And, here we will just disagree.

Annalex, this is why we Protestants push the point. Does it really matter to me if Peter was ever in Rome? Not really. I think he was martyred by Nero and was probably at some point there. Was that his main ministry or even his headquarters? Sorry, I don't see it. You see, What matters is that an extra-biblical life has been created for Peter, and based upon something other that Scripture, be it tradition or whatever, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people are looking to mere men (as Peter's supposed successors) to be their conduit between themselves and Christ.

People look to Rome to define doctrine, rather than at Scripture themselves. Catholics, by in large, are some of the most Scripturally illiterate people I have met, but don't take that statement too hard- I think most people regardless of denomination are pretty much in the dark as far as Scripture goes. Protestants believe because their family believes that way, or the preacher preaches it that way, or they just "feel it". They don't study however and as a result we are losing entire countries. Catholics are similar in that Rome has convinced most of them that Scripture is really for the clerics to understand. Just do everything we tell you to do and you'll be fine. It is sad on both counts.

Scripture is where the living Word is revealed. It's where we find salvation. It isn't in doing. It isn't in following some Prelate's instructions. It isn't in following the family tradition. It is through a simple acceptance of Jesus Christ's finished work on Calvary in our life and that alone that we are saved.

We could keep on and keep on, but really the key remains the same and always shall. The key is SOLA or not SOLA. Is it faith ALONE by Grace ALONE through Christ ALONE and the truth from SCRIPTURE alone?? Or is it faith Plus, Grace plus, Christ plus, Scripture plus? You will probably argue on some of those that the Catholic church is Sola. After thoroughly studying what the Catholic church believes (from your sources as to not be prejudiced), I'm sad to say that the Solas are not to be found in Catholicism. It's always plus something. And, that plus something is undergirded on a foundation that takes one verse in Matthew 16 and conflates it into an entire system of Religion which is not Scriptural.

Well, it appears that we will not agree. But I hope that you've enjoyed the discussion. I think it is important to discuss things moderately (not in the RINO sort of way, but with temperance).

[annalex]

they could draw the distinction

Of course. Primary usage of "adelphos" is "brother (of the same parents)". The point is that when a mixture of relatives is described, or when precision is not required, or when a special kinship is indicated, the same word is used. IN SHORT, the Protestant position MUST be admitted to be entirely tenable

The protestant position is indeed tenable from scripture. But so is the Catholic/Orthodox position tenable. You position, however, is not tenable from tradition.

Jesus intentionally distinguishes between these "fellowship brothers" and the "brothers associated with Mary."

He is doing the exact opposite, He intentionally equates the two.

[annalex]

I do have a "problem" with a prayer that might not even be an actual prayer to God, in that it never "gets through"

But God hears your prayer regardless. In fact, He hears before you even say it.

[annalex]

I think it is two different words.

The Greek is "petra", feminine, means "rock". "Petros" is not used anywhere in the patristic period; "lithos" is used for "pebble". The most natural reading is that Jesus simply makes a masculine proper noun from feminine common noun, since Simon is a man. The conversation most likely took place in Aramaic anyway.

The idea of Peter being the "head of the church" can't be supported anywhere else.

Peter is also given the keys to the Kingdom, asked to feed the sheep and is told that Christ will pray for him so that he converts his brethren. These are all things that apply individually to St. Peter. He also sets in motion the first major reform of the Chruch at the Jerusalem council, -- if it were not for Peter, you would not be able to enjoy lobster. Head of the Church he is not called indeed, because Christ is.

[annalex]

So many metaphors, so many theories.

To be sure "upon you I will build my Chruch" is a metaphor. He is a man, not a truck of ready mix. I do not see a foundation metaphor though in the "olive tree" passage.

[annalex]

from the Orthodox point of view, the conceptual baptism hypothesized by the Latins in the case of our Most Holy Theotokos does not remove any "original sin."

I understand that. My point is that from the Catholic perspective, unless I misunderstand this difficult subject, there is no superhumanity because baptism removes the original sin.

We understand original sin as a macula, which of course, entails also concupiscense (disordered mind and weak will) and death. We do not, howwever, consider original sin as personal sin as it does not condemn to hell. We take the baptism clause in the Creed literally even when applied to children who are definitionally free from personal sin. These things may be ndeed difficult to bridge, but it is not fair to our understanding to say that Mary in our perspective is taking on superhuman qualities because of her immaculate conception. It is a bit like Protestants seeing someone kneeling in front of a statue of a saint and deciding "that man is an idolater". It ignores the native Catholic perspective and injects an innatural to us perspective in order to make the accusation.

[annalex]

it does not follow that [St. Peter] started the Roman Catholic Church.

Which church did he start?

[xzins]

In reality Christ said it was HIS Church, and that Peter would build upon it through Peter.

"....on this rock I will build my church."

I don't think Peter was into denominations.

[annalex]

Because of their refusal to repent, Adam and Eve were cursed. That curse changed their nature which became succeptible to decay and death (absence of Grace). Thus the essence of our absence of Grace is not guilt, macula, spot that has to be removed or washed away, but mortality. And we know that baptism does not remove our mortality.

Kosta, having read Jo Kus's post 1041, I need to take back my wording that original sin is a "macula" in the precise sense. It is just a word. Jo described it with great precision. Now, to your conclusion that all there is to the phenomenon we call original sin is death. It is not really accurate. Death is one of these consequences. But the underlying condition we call original sin is lack of grace. Death is one consequence. It is not the entire consequence. Concupiscence is another consequence.

[xzins]

He intentionally equates the two.

So you're suggesting that someone other than Mary was his mother??

[annalex]

in such cases as the Marian doctrines, in which case we assert that there is a direct contradiction in scripture.

There is a contradiction with a particular interrpetation of the Bible, the one you happen to favor, not with the Bible itself.

[xzins]

If interpretation is the issue, then you have agreed that we are a differing hermeneutic than what you use.

We are making progress.

We rely on scripture foremost, and then, history, reason, and experience.

You rely on scripture and tradition. My sense is that the tradition relied upon is carefully selected. I would claim that the dogma preceded the study rather than vice versa.

Such an eisegetical method is backward to those who advocate sola scriptura.