'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/

[jo kus]

I rely on the witness of Holy Spirit with my spirit.

If I had a dollar for everyone who said that...

Frankly, your behavior is not indicative of the Holy Spirit...

The problem you seem to have is that "your opinion" = "God's Word and Spirit within me"

You know how a person can identify whether the Spirit of God is within them? By their humility and obedience. Not by your condescension and hatred. We don't find such an attitude with the Holy Spirit. We find humility. Thus, I highly doubt that the Spirit is abiding within you. The Spirit is not self-righteous. Perhaps you should speak with more humble brothers, such as Quester and learn from him on how to approach other people whom you disagree with in a Christian manner.

Please don't bother me until you have finished your abusive behavior. I have other things to do besides reading your rantings

Regards

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Mad Dawg]

Yes, the more I consider it, the more I DO mean it. Not about calling a Church after a place, maybe. But Scottsville Baptist and Scottsville Methodist certainly have a little Shinto thing going on. (And Scottsville Baptist is fissiparous, having given birth to at least two other dissenting Baptist Churches).

Look at Minnow's argument:
If there is no Mary worship, then why all the temples in her name? About 90 per cent of Catholic churches are "our Lady" this or that
If there is no ancestor worship, why are so many protestant churches named after some person no longer on this side of the veil? Around here if it isn't called after a place, it's called after some person. (Remarkably about 20 miles from here there is Saint John Baptist Church!) And then, For all you Sola Fide people, there is, I kid you not, "Effort Baptist Church." What do you suppose THEY worship?

But the argument Minnows proposes and you defend is circular, IF we worshipped Mary, why, yes, then our dedicating churches to her might be a sign of that worship.

But we don't worship Mary. But you all know better than we what we do -- you can't tell who's saved, except that each of you knows that he or she is. But you CAN tell not only what a Catholic is doing in his heart, but also that his doing it is the Church's fault. And he certainly isn't able to make a distinction ...

You people have simply GOT to stop worshipping forbears and municipalities or streets or whatever. I don't think you do, but I know I don't worship Mary. But what we say ourselves, what we say in our official teachings, these don't count. Because we have members who don't get it and we don't throw them out, YOU know what we really mean deep down inside. You know better than we why we name our Churches the way we do.

[blue-duncan]

"Salvation by sacrament, yes. This is what the verse says."

No, that's not what the verse says. If you look at the context, Jesus is explaining that belief on Him and His words bring eternal life.

John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

35, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

40, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

69, "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus used bread and His body and blood as metaphors explaining that His words are life and to be taken in and digested as necessary food and drink that bring life, unlike physical food.

John 6:27, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

68. "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

One would think that if this "salvation by ritual sacrament" was so important to salvation like belief is that it would be mentioned by the other writers or mentioned again by John, however this is the only place in scripture it is mentioned and not until around 85-90 A.D. when John's Gospel was written. John does not even think communion is important to salvation since he does not mention the specifics of the Last Supper as do the synoptic writers, however John, being consistent with his understanding of what Jesus means by "bread" and "flesh" writes extensively about the "words" of Jesus at the Last Supper.

1 Cor. 11:23-26, Paul has the same understanding of what Jesus meant about "bread", His "body" and His "blood" when he says the bread and cup are memorials of who Jesus is and what Jesus accomplished by His death and our celebration at His table is is not salvific but a proclamation of His having paid the penalty for sin.

It would seem that the idea of "salvation by ritual sacrament" falls into the same error of understanding that those who thought Jesus was speaking of His physical body and blood were repulsed since it was a violation of the Law and later the letter to the Gentile churches from the Jerusalem church. It is also illogical to think that Jesus meant His physical body as there is no evidence the disciples partook while Jesus was with them or that they could since Jesus was still in His physical body and still subject to physical death. there is no mention by John that this "eating and drinking" was to be postponed until some later time. Jesus is speaking in the present and the people understood that as evidence of their repulsion.

The key to understanding this is in John 6:37-39, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

John 6:45, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

John 6:65, "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

[kosta50]

Kosta, Kosta, Kosta, when are you going to stop painting all protestants with your big brush? Our church, among many spirit-filled churches, certainly do read those verses. We even have classes at different times of the year that address some of the things of which you speak.

Dear lady, am I then to presume that women in your church come covered, stay silent, ask their husbands at home if they do not understand something, and learn in silence and submission, as the Bible says they ought to?

If so, I stand corrected.

As for painting your assemblies with a broad brush, that I am not. Rather I was referring to the (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church that never reads those Epistles. So, if anything, I am painting my Church with a broad brush, lamentably so.

I know most Protestant communities not only don't read those verses but ignore them since they have female 'pastors' and even 'bishops' and other such abominations.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, just tonite on cable tv I see something referencing "Our Lady of the Angels". What the heck is that? Our lady of the Immaculate Heart. Our lady of Guatemala, our lady of the Atonement (what is that?), our lady Queen of Peace, our lady of Lourdes, our lady of fatima, our lady of the immaculate conception, our lady of the Assumption, our lady of perpetual virginity, our lady of the lake, (lake?) wasn't that King Arthur? It is very bizarre.

[1000 silverlings]

I never heard of John of the Jordan Baptist Church, or St. John of the Angels, or John the Baptist Dionysius Baptist church, or The black John the Baptist of Poland Baptist Church, or John of the Atonement Baptist church, or St. Elijah of the Assumption Baptist church, or King David Baptist, or St Spurgeon London Baptist, but then I don't get out much.

[jo kus]

Sorry, but it needed to be said. View his replies in the last few days. I am merely denying his claim that he is "Holy Spirit-filled". Then, I go on to explain how one knows another is "Holy Spirit-filled". I am not calling him any names.


Regards

[Mad Dawg]

I will speedily grant "Bizarre". But in explanation I plead that we are talking about an old and large organization with lots of stories of visions and visitations.

And in any event your original contention was the naming churches for Mary contradicted our assertion that we don't worship her. That's still a non-sequitur and it was against that proposition that I was arguing.

San Juan Capistrano anyone? (Hint: Capistrano is not San Juan's last name.)

[Mad Dawg]

Wow! Nice post! "Meaty" if I may say so int he context and all heh heh heh. Seriously, nice post.

If you look at the context,

Ah, the wonderful chamaeleon, the mirror in which every one of us looks and reports seeing his own face looking back. One man's context is another man's irrelevancy.

Can anything be proved from Scripture? Real question. I'm a skeptic on it. But can we convey the context by choosing verses 29,35,40,47, and 69? What gematria tells us that these verses and these alone provide what we need for accurate interpretation? It's an epistemological question, and I've never seen a good answer.

Jesus used bread and His body and blood as metaphors

Did Jesus intend to deceive? Elsewhere He says, the kingdom of God "is like ...". Here and at the Last Supper He does not say "like". What's up with that? And if they are just metaphors, what's in them to winnow out so many, so that even the twelve seem to be thinking it over ...

One would think that if this "salvation by ritual sacrament" was so important to salvation like belief is that it would be mentioned by the other writers or mentioned again by John... And the rest of the paragraph. Certainly it is question why John does not give an account of the last supper. But it is not a slam dunk to conclude that he does not think it important. Would you say he does not think the Lord's prayer important?

Even in my Protestant days I thought that maybe John's gospel was a mystagogical document, and now I see that it is certainly used that way. John cloaks and lets glimmers show through. I think, but this is a conjecture I admit, he meant to rely precisely on tradition to flesh out (so to speak heh heh heh) what he wrote. For a while there, the Lords prayer and the Sacrament were (i am told ) considered by some to be mysteries NOT to be discussed frankly before the uninitiate. ("The doors, the doors!" Identify that reference and win two weeks in Byzantium)

So that conjecture serves to explain John's reticence. In this reading it's not that it's too unimportant to mention, it's that it's WAY too important to mention.

Of course the nature of the body described is sufficiently problematic that I would hesitate to use the word "physical" to denote what IHS was talking about. I liek your "tense" argument, but hasten to say that the wiggle room is provided by the weird nature of tenses in Hebrew. Does anybody here know how tense is handled in Aramaic?

t is also illogical to think that Jesus meant His physical body as there is no evidence the disciples partook while Jesus was with them

Okay, I'm confused. Are the acocunts of the last supper not evidence?

Thanks again, minnows: nice post.

[Marysecretary]

Well, our church doesn't have female pastors or bishops. We're a spirit-filled church under Elim Fellowship in Lima, NY. Women rarely cover their heads these days. I don't think God really cares that much because He's more concerned with the condition of our heart than a legalistic covering of our heads. If God asked me, like he did one woman in our church, to wear a covering, I would. My heart is bent toward God and if He says wear a covering, I will.

[Marysecretary]

OK, whatever.

[Running On Empty]

:-)

[Running On Empty]

Thanks for post #11741 and for this one.

[blue-duncan]

"Okay, I'm confused. Are the acocunts of the last supper not evidence?"

This is not meant to be sarcasm, but Jesus, as the host of the last supper, did not say to the disciples "bite me", he said "believe in me". The bread and cup at the last supper was just what it was, bread and wine, not the body and blood of Jesus since his body had not been broken and his blood had not been spilt for sin. Jesus, himself, ate the bread and drank the wine with them and then told the disciples he would not drink the wine again until the kingdom. Now if it turns magically into his blood, why would he need to drink his own blood in the kingdom?

[Forest Keeper]

According to the Church teaching, the souls are immortal, so death, by necessity, refers only to the body. We don't read of angels dying! But there is more to this, of course, and the best way to describe it is "play on words."

I suppose I would say that SINCE the soul is immortal, that physical death is irrelevant. Real death is eternal separation from God. It seems to me that Jesus spoke exclusively in these terms.

My understanding is that because she never sinned, her body was immaculate (although her "nature" was mortal!), she will not be judged at the End of Times and was therefore taken to heaven as the saved will be at the second Coming.

I don't know why she would escape Judgment. Even within the construct, she could simply be adjudicated innocent on all counts. This line would also seem problematic with all the scripture on the Judgment (i.e., no exceptions).

[Forest Keeper]

The Church has taught that man is created in the image of God and has a particular destiny in store. Mary is the pioneer of this destiny. Being fully and entirely human and human alone, we can look to her and hold out the hope and belief that we, too, will share in the glory that she shares in today.

When I think of a pioneer I think of a great leader, someone who finds or teaches a new thing. Many times such wind up being martyred, like almost all of the Apostles. I don't see any of these things in Mary. However, I suppose I could understand a label of pioneer if one believed she was sinless.

This is the reasoning and the timing of the Doctrine of the Assumption. It is the alternate message to what we hear today from our society - even now, where man is merely a cog in the big wheel of society ...

But what is the connection between the Assumption and man's dignity? None of us are eligible for sinlessness by the time we hear of the concept, and none of us will be assumed. I don't see what the Assumption "adds".

[annalex]

Mary did not yet believe

Finding Jesus in the Temple:

48 And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? 50 And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.

Believe she did:

38 ... Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.

45 And blessed art thou [Mary] that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. 46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

(Luke 1)

What the finding Jesus episode tells us that Mary did not understand (v.50). It tells us that Christ was obedient to Joseph and Mary (v. 51). And it tells us that Mary's faith never failed her despite the inability to understand: "his mother kept all these words in her heart". In this episode the Gospel teaches us, through the example of the Blessed Mother of God, to seek and believe Christ before we understand Him.

It is pure invention to suggest that this meant Mary was encouraging Jesus to wave His hands and produce some from thin air. Biblically, we have no idea if Mary "got it" at this point.

This is approaching blasphemy in tone, although I am sure you did not mean it that way. It is also wrong in substance. This is the entire exchange between Mary and Jesus:

1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

From v. 4 we know that Jesus understood her as interceding for a miracle. I suggest you follow His lead and understand her speech to Jesus in the same way He did. From v. 5 we see that Mary "got it" perfectly well. When your pastor tells you that, never mind John 6:55, the Eucharist is not salvific, may this be your response too: "Whatsoever [Christ] shall say to you, do ye".

I do not need to remind you that the miracle did happen, involved not "thin air" but rather the two sacramental substances, water and wine, and Mary's faith we see in v.5 lead to the faith of many in v. 11.

The blindness to scripture you exhibit is a direct consequence of mariophobia.

[kosta50]

If God asked me, like he did one woman in our church, to wear a covering, I would. My heart is bent toward God and if He says wear a covering, I will

But, dear lady, He did actually command women to do so (through +Paul). I gather that you base all your beliefs on the Bible. Are not +Paul's words the words of God to you?

In the Apostolic Churches (Catholic/Orthodox) the fault is with the hierarchy, for they are the shepards who need to enforce what the Scripture says. But they don't for fear that many will leave and join Protestant groups. So modernism is tolerated if not encouraged.

I don't think God really cares that much because He's more concerned with the condition of our heart than a legalistic covering of our heads

It's not legalistic. It's Scriptural. After all, God is the Law, so are we now going to accuse God of being "legalistic?"

[jo kus]

When I think of a pioneer I think of a great leader, someone who finds or teaches a new thing. Many times such wind up being martyred, like almost all of the Apostles. I don't see any of these things in Mary. However, I suppose I could understand a label of pioneer if one believed she was sinless.

Pioneer merely means the first person to go somewhere or lead the way. That was my intent of the use of the word "pioneer". It does not express Mary's sinlessness - that comes from elsewhere.

Since Mary is a symbol of the Church - the Virgin Mother (The Church is also a "virgin" and a mother of Christians) - she is the biblical representation of the entire people of God and what we are called to be: Pure and undefiled and joined to Jesus Christ her Son, obedient and humble to God's Word.

But what is the connection between the Assumption and man's dignity?

Because we aren't going to just rot in the ground when our time is done, FK. God has greater plans for us - and the "Church", represented by Mary, will become the Heavenly Church with God in heaven. Our dignity is "verified" by Mary's Assumption. The Assumption doesn't "add" anything! It merely shows that God intends to do what He promised to those of the Church.

Regards