'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/

[Forest Keeper]

It is true that God leads His Elect, but He does not do so against their free will. If they fail on their will, they, -- being elect -- will reconcile with God also on their free will, and through the ministry of His Church:

No one is dragged kicking and screaming into Heaven. This is accomplished by God changing the wills of His elect, not by God suggesting that we use our inner goodness to overcome our sinful nature. If it is totally up to the free will of the individual (and the Church), as you say, how can you be sure that all of the elect will reconcile? You can't. The men of the Church are not infallible and the elect are not infallible. Only God is. ....... Your quote from 2 Cor. 5 supports my side. It is God who does the reconciling, not men by their inner good choices, and not the men of the Church through their superiority and higher class.

Yeah, right. "bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" cannot possibly be about the Eucharist. What a thought.

That is salvation by ritual sacrament. The thought is that this isn't Biblical. By this standard uncounted millions of Catholics are doomed because they either do not participate, or they do so while unworthy. However, I'm sure you can provide a shortcut around this problem.

The manna had everything to do with their physical arrival to the Promised Land, it prefigured our arrival to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which the Eucharist has everything to do.

The connection is that God provides for ALL of our needs, physical and spiritual. It is not that God gives us physical food, but we take care of our own salvations by choosing to participate in ritual sacraments.

Yes, these verses say exactly that: that the work of Christ in the elect will be carried to completion.

But you turn it around to mean that the elect carry on the work, God peers through His crystal ball to see who performed, and then elects them. Phil. 1:6 says the opposite, God will carry on the work to completion.

A fresh-eye reading of 2 Peter 1:2-11 does not allow for the interpretation that all this work on the virtues is only there to remember something his reader forgot. If that were the meaning, St. Peter would simply say, "don't forget to partake of that divine nature you've received when you got saved; it's in the kitchen cabinet on the right...".

No one claimed that is the only point of the passage. First, the fresh-eye reading does not lead to one thinking he has been given a divine nature, so that's a problem right there. But right to the point:

2 Peter 1:9 : But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

I assume that your take is going to be that only past sins were forgiven because Christ only did a partial on the cross. (It was typical of Christ to only go half-way in the actions He took.) But verse 4 tells us that we are to rely on God's precious promises, and those promises in scripture do NOT tell us that we need to continually reacquire salvation after losing it over and over. If that were the meaning then God would have said "But now you have lost your salvation which I promised was secure. Now do further works to receive the blessings of men, that they may restore you."

[jo kus]

Perhaps you could explain why there's such a persistent impression that for sooooo many folks of such persuasions, she constitutes the sum total of the church and certainly all the parts and aspects they care to pay attention to and make a fuss over.

I am not responding to such exaggerations. If you actually believe they are true, then you should get out more and see what Catholics actually do regarding Mary. Your stereotypes are nowhere near the truth of the matter.

Regards

[jo kus]

A pitiful task, to convert Calvinists.

LOL! That is why my patron saint is St. Francis de Sales. After my writing on this site, my respect for his abilities continues to shoot up. How he was able to convert so many Calvinists in Switzerland is nothing short of a miracle - consider that these guys believe they are elect to heaven already - based on nothing more than a tortuous circular argument...

Regards

[jo kus]

CALL NO MAN FATHER?!!!

Be sure to email St. Paul and fill him in on that interpretation of Jesus' words...

Regards

[Quix]

I am not responding to such exaggerations. If you actually believe they are true, then you should get out more and see what Catholics actually do regarding Mary. Your stereotypes are nowhere near the truth of the matter.
= = =

Clearly exaggeration and stereotypes are also in the eye of the beholder.

I suspect I've gotten out more over 3 continents than most FREEPERS have. And I worked for 2 years with a precious Mary Knoll Sister.

And, I saw plenty of evidence for my perspective amongst too many RC folks.

But IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE WAS WHAT I SEE ROUTINELY ON FR, I'D HAVE TO CONCLUDE THE SAME THING AS I STATED ABOVE. Thankfully, it's not true of all RC's but it IS ABUNDANTLY TRUE OF A DISTURBING PERCENTAGE.

Are you HONESTLY asserting that you've never observed nor met an RC with such an unBiblical focus on Mary?

If so, then it's certainly not the one in my mirror who needs to get out more.

[Quix]

So you're insisting that Jesus was just passing hot air when He said those words? That they have no valid spiritual meaning at all?

Fascinating.

[1000 silverlings]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

After a terrible and prolonged temptation to despair, caused by the discussions of the theologians of the day on the question of predestination, from which he was suddenly freed as he knelt before a miraculous image of Our Lady at St. Etienne-des-Grès, he made a vow of chastity and consecrated himself to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(But he didn't worship her, lol)

[Forest Keeper]

My sources are :

Thanks for the links. My software doesn't include those and I didn't have an easy link to them anyway. That's very helpful. Bookmarked. :)

[Forest Keeper]

Unless your high school was on Mars, you had a lense as thick as an ACLU lawyer...

How do you figure that? Whatever my environment was, it wasn't anti-Catholic. For example, I dated plenty of Catholic girls. :)

[Forest Keeper]

But why then do you say that you faith was not grown by your developing a "servant heart"?

I think I said on another line, but I can't remember who was pinged. :) (I.e., we're just crossing lines.) Just to be sure then, the only distinction I was making was on the origin of faith. Once God delivers faith to the elect, it will then grow under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Part of this growth is through good works. "Grow from" can mean "begin from", that's all.

[Forest Keeper]

The operative illusion here is that co-Redemptrix means anything different than what the Catechism, posted at 11,441, teaches:

she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix

The title of Advocate is Biblically specific. It DOES NOT apply to Mary:

Job 16:19-21 : 19 Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high. 20 My intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; 21 on behalf of a man he pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend. NIV

1 John 2:1 : My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: KJV

"Mediatrix" is obviously refuted by:

1 Tim 2:5 : For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...NIV

Here again we have Mary's venerators intruding on Christ's sovereign province on her behalf. There is only one Mediator, one Advocate.

[Forest Keeper]

I have to ask. Do you think I am unfamiliar with or have forgotten the tests of Scripture you quote here?

No, not at all. But I don't know how you see them either. :) From my POV, I'm sure you can see how I would think there is an apparent contradiction.

You recognize the reference to envy, I hope?

I thought of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, but I still didn't think it applied. I have no problems with Mary. I don't envy her, I don't think she's getting special treatment that I "deserve", and it is not my purpose to tear her down. I worry that others exert such great energy in their Christian lives venerating, adoring, admiring, exhorting, praying to, supplicating to, lifting up, placing above others, and indeed placing faith in, etc., Mary, that the true focus of their worship may suffer. The distinctions made by truly learned Catholics here have some objective plausibility, but I seriously doubt that the masses have such an understanding. (That is only based on my personal interactions with "regular" Catholics who are not of the theologian ilk. No offense to them. :)

Finally, I think you DO have a cultural "lens".

Yes, I certainly do. I was saying that I don't think I had a theologic lens when I first started reading the Bible. But now, of course, I also have a theologic lens.

I don't think you get royalty, and how royal titles in another culture are part of the currency of honor. I think the lens not so much of the Reformation as of the Enlightenment and the separation of Church and state provides a distorted understanding of and affect towards this kind of lingo. It's a younger language.

Well, all of this could be right. :) Do you think it is correct that the hierarchy should be treated as Royalty, and that the Church's rightful place is to head the state? I mean this in the sense of the current political organization of the RCC. IOW, "the people" have zero say, and the hierarchs elect themselves to all offices of higher power.

OOPs I'm late for "24".

Never miss it. Still can't get over "little Ricky" as a tough guy. :)

[Forest Keeper]

(FK, sorry if I was abrupt. The fate of the world was in the balance and all and I needed to help Jack Bauer figure out what to do, so I was in a hurry.)

Not at all. I'm starting to notice that Jack's been having kind of a tough day, so I'm sure he can use all the help he can get. :)

[Kolokotronis]

"Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless."

This isn't even remotely true of Orthodox theology. Such dogma as exists, exists because the People of God have accepted it and lived it out, such doctrines and beliefs as are expressed in the consensus patrum are beliefs of The Church because there is indeed a consensus of understanding and interpretation among the Fathers and those are likewise accepted by the People of God. Time and again in Eastern Christianity hierarchs have espoused heretical doctrines but in the end, the "orthodoxy" of belief in The Church has prevailed. Our hierarchs don't tell us what to believe, The Church does. That's how the Holy Spirit works and has worked in The Church since Pentecost.

[Kolokotronis]

"There were always small groups here and there within and outside the Roman umbrella who had not bowed their knees to baal, so to speak. God has always had His own ways of protecting and preserving and nurturing a remnant."

There have always been heretics, Q, espousing soul destroying theories. There is no doubt that Nestorianism survives here and there and has continuously since the days when it was anathemized, but I know of no Protestant group which traces its lineage to the Nestorianism of China or Iraq and Iran. I am very interested in the theory, which as I understand it arose in the 20th century, that many Protestant groups of today are in fact the spiritual descendants of these groups. Is there any real scholarship on this/ From what little I have seen, and virtually all of it has been here on FR, it appears that this theory embraces or claims a pedigree running back to some pretty awful groups, virtually all of which were at base Gnostic and whose beliefs seem at odds with 500 years of Protestant religious thought. I can't help but wonder if that newly discovered history doesn't lie at the base of the rise of unabashed Gnosticism in so called "mainline" Protestantism today.

[kosta50]

You are quoting out of context, Quix. Text-proofing does that. Yet, the message of Christ is clear, and unambiguous as to whom He had in mind and in what context. In context, of course, He was addressing His disciples and the crowds, and assailing the scribes and Pharisees saying

"The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

"They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.

"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant.

"Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. [Mat 23:2-12]

Clearly he was talking about the Pharisees who were hypocrites, sayting they should not be called "rabbi" or "father" (because people used to call rabbis [spiritual] "father" or "rabbi"), or "leaders," because they do not represent our Father in heaven, our Rabbi or our Leader (Messiah), but only themselves.

Clearly, he did not put a prohibition on the use of the word "father," either biological or spiritual, for He Himself calls Abraham the father, and throughout the Bible various spiritual fathers of Israel are mentioned.

You would make a much more effective impact with your posts if you concentrated on the context rather than the colorful slogans, imo. Emotional replies are like 50,000 Volt wires. No one wants to touch them even with a 10-foot pole.

[jo kus]

And, I saw plenty of evidence for my perspective amongst too many RC folks.

How so? Because someone is trying to defend the Co-Redemptrix of Mary? That makes them a "Mary worshiper"? Who at FR has thoroughly described their private devotional life in such detail that you KNOW that they have some fixation on Mary to the exclusion of Jesus Christ?

And by the way, what would be "just enough" honor due to Mary - as the Bible says we owe her?

My own personal devotion to Mary is not very strong - to my chagrin. However, I will defend the Church's stance on her beliefs of the role of our Savior's Mother in the plan of salvation of mankind. Because I defend her, does this make me a "Mary worshiper"?

Again, you are going overboard with your exaggerations.

Regards

[jo kus]

So you're insisting that Jesus was just passing hot air when He said those words? That they have no valid spiritual meaning at all?

Not at all, Quix. You are jumping to conclusions again... They don't mean what YOU say, however. Unless you would have Paul breaking Jesus' "command".

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. 1 Cor 4:15

Is Paul's writings inspired by God - by His Word? If so, then you have to understand Jesus' words differently then you present them.

Regards

[jo kus]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

After a terrible and prolonged temptation to despair, caused by the discussions of the theologians of the day on the question of predestination, from which he was suddenly freed as he knelt before a miraculous image of Our Lady at St. Etienne-des-Grès, he made a vow of chastity and consecrated himself to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(But he didn't worship her, lol)

From Sacred Scripture

David commanded all the assembly: Bless ye the Lord our God. And all the assembly blessed the Lord the God of their fathers: and they bowed themselves and worshipped God, and then the king. And they sacrificed victims to the Lord: and they offered holocausts the next day, a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their libations, and with every thing prescribed most abundantly for all Israel 1 Chronicles 29:20-21

(LOL! But they didn't worship David, right?!)

Please take the entire Scriptures into account before you jump to conclusions. Men kneel before other men and honor them. This is not worshiping as if they were God.

This is an example of worship given to God that is disordered and breaks the commandment:

the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Go, get thee down: thy people, which thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt, hath sinned. They have quickly strayed from the way which thou didst shew them: and they have made to themselves a molten calf, and have adored it, and sacrificing victims to it, have said: These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 32:7-8

The ONLY exterior act that is reserved for God is sacrifice. Note, bowing down is one thing, but sacrificing victims to "god" is clearly something else. Note in the Chronicles post, the Jews only sacrifice to God, not David. Note the underlined sections of Sacred Scripture. Compare righteous "worship" and sinful "worship". Thus, we Catholics (and Orthodox) may kneel before a statue or an icon in prayer, but this is not a form of worshiping God. The Divine Liturgy, the Mass, is the only place we offer sacrifice - and it is ALWAYS offered to God the Father ALONE. Not Mary or any saint.

Kneeling is certainly an act of honor, but it doesn't imply worship as if they were God. Kneeling is an act of humility. And we know what God said about being humble...

Regards

[wmfights]

As I have probably told you before, the Bible is not an all-inclusive history book. A lot happened in the world that is not recorded in the Sacred Scripture and a lot was recorded in a spiritual sense.

I understand you need your "Tradition" in order to justify some of your beliefs. The fact remains the only thing we have that we can be absolutely certain is truth are the Scriptures. They were written by the Apostles or those that knew the Apostles. They were not fabricated several generations to hundreds of years after the fact, such as the Protoevangelium of James was to support what has become flawed doctrine.