'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]

Paul teaches Sola Fide in writing. Some of you say "no he didn't" and back it up with the writings of later men, whom you trust more, who disagree with the plain meaning of his words. Others of you say "yes he did", but he (Paul) was wrong.

It's actually both, FK, taken in context, of course.

+Paul preaches sola fide because it is the very minimum required. The Protestant error is that it claims faith to be all that is required.

In the historical context, +Paul expected the end of times to come at any moment, and faith was a must in order for the coverts to be baptized. Under such urgency, works of faith simply had a secondary meaning to him.

[kosta50]

FK: "We, OTOH, believe that all of God's word was meant to be learned and loved by all believers as relevant to them specifically

The word was not legible or comprehensible or available to all but to a few for most of the Christian history. Your statement has no historical basis. Also, the very word of God does not tell us to read but to listen; God did not give us a book to read. God preached to His prophets and Apostles.

[kosta50]

You mean don't bother you with the facts

No, just with excessively lengthy diatribes.

[kosta50]

The Gospels had headings 'according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Show me the oldest copies of the fragments showing the first page. Do some research. And, the 19th century is long gone. Perhaps you need to update your sources.

'We' know nothing of the kind

That head is still stuck in the sand. Denial is not a proof, FTD.

Once again, there is no legitimate reason to doubt any of the Old Testament books or their authors

Why? Because someone chooses to believe so against all evidence? Hey, if you wish to believe so, that's fine with me; just don't present your belifs as facts.

No, actually David's Jewish empire did span a very great area

Again, you need to update your readings.

It was axiomatic because of the authorship

The authorship of many biblical books is based on traditional belief and not on evidence. I hate to burst your bubble, but many of the books purportedly written by the same author demonstrate dissimilar writing style, vocabulary and other elements that betray them as having differet authors claiming to be one and the sam Apostle.

[kosta50]

Actually, the 'Canon' was formed quite early by the Church

Nope. Different churches had different "canons".

The Founder of the religion is not alive in those religions

No one believes and worships and fears a 'dead' god. All religions in the world worship a deity that exists and is alive. Get real.

Moreover, Christianity is the only faith that claims its founder is God

Judaism and Islam do as well. So does the oldest written religion: Hinduism, by revelation at that.

And the Fundamentals may not be wrong as is the case when your Church accepts them in the various Creeds-such as the Trinity

So, you have issues with Trinity? I should have known. Well, then our discussion is over. I discuss thing only with Christians.

[Forest Keeper]

Alex: "This is why 2 Peter speaks of making sure one's calling and election."

FK: "Well, in that case, you cannot believe there is even a such thing as the "elect". If any of the elect ultimately fall short, then the concept is destroyed."

Alex: "Not at all. If he falls short, he is not of the elect, even though he is called. If he is among the elect, he will do what St. Peter tells him, repent, grow in virtues, remain elect, and sin no more." (emphasis added)

You make my point for me. If it is up to a person to REMAIN elect, then the Biblical concept is moot. It is a sham. Just say that men elect themselves and be done with it. :) One of my favorite movies is "The Sting". You have God past-posting!!! And I'm not even kidding. :)

FK: "The flesh counts for nothing."

This is not interpretation, this is mistranslation, designed to tell you lies about the gospel.

You're right, this is not interpretation. These are actual words from John 6. What is the mistranslation?

A true leader leads free men who know what they are doing as they follow. What you see is a slave runner.

Amen! Yes, God is a runner of slaves to righteousness. For example:

1 Cor 7:21-23 : 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave . 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

It does not appear that Christ is respecting men here. What about this:

Rom 6:17-18 : 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Paul readily says that he is putting this in "human terms". That's the way we use it here.

(Ecclesiasticus 15) .....

Thanks for posting from the Deuts. :) From the flow of the passage, this certainly seems like a works-based salvation model. I.e. "16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, ..." How do you analyze them, as against the OT or the NT? I ask because we have been dealing with the NT.

[HarleyD]

The word was not legible or comprehensible or available to all but to a few for most of the Christian history.

The Church certainly did try their best, didn't they? Fortunately, along came the Protestant revolution which put the scriptures in the hands of the people.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Fortunately, along came the Protestant revolution which put the scriptures in the hands of the people.

Amen, Harley. The Holy Spirit will not be denied.

Welcome back! 8~)

[Mad Dawg]

Seriously: Is there any sense in which the word "free" is rightly attributed to human beings. If the answer is yes, can you sort of develop it a little, please?

As I have or should have said to you before, I think the whole matter is unthinkable. We have Jeremiah saying that God does not willingly afflict the children of men -- with the suggestion that God does stuff unwillingly. We have 1 Tim 2:3-4 and the apparent problem of God's desire being frustrated. To me that's a poser.

How can we give the sovereignty of God its proper place in any account without ending up sounding a lot like Muslims - "(shrug) It is written, inscrutable but written: some are damned, some are saved, what can you do but what it is written that you shall do, what can you suffer but what it is written you shall suffer ....)

Clearly we have different ethical concepts from those of Islam, and we think that Jesus is the perfect and efficacious revelation of God, while they think the Mohammed provided the perfect revelation, while being himself one heck of a guy, but not divine. But they seem to despise freedom, while in every other FR forum but the religious one Freedom is a value.

I'm serious here. Is this at all suggestive of anything that might be important or should I just go back to sleep?

---

[kosta50]

The Church certainly did try their best, didn't they? Fortunately, along came the Protestant revolution which put the scriptures in the hands of the people

Not really. You are spreading a myth which has no historical or factual backing. It was Gutenberg's invention of the printing press that made it possible to make numerous copies of books without having to make them by manually copying them.

And even when that was made possible, how many people did the Protestants make literate? You may be surprised that the illiteracy rates in Protestant societies were no different than elsewhere and that it was not until well into the second half of the 20th century that (rudimentary) literacy became the norm.

In Protestant England, for example, as late as 1841, up to 33% of men and 44% of women were illiterate (they had to "sign" with a "mark"). This is 300 years after the Protestant Reformation.

As is, even the majority of those those who are considered "literate" only have ground-level literacy skills (newspapers, etc.), and as many as one third of the people in America have difficulty reading period.

How are then people going to "understand" the word of God? Never mind the fact that they have no cultural historical background to fall back on in order to more fully comprehend what is read either.

In fact, it seems we are reversing the trend, as the literacy rates appear to be declining.

There is a significant difference between being able to pronounce letters into words and cognitive and analytical literacy, or just being able to sing his or her name (i.e. knowing what one is actually reading).

The National center for education Statistics reports that among college graduates literacy actually declined between 1992 and 2003,and that less then 1/3 of college graduates were at the highest proficiency level (2003), including less than half of those with advanced degrees!

[kosta50]

sing=sign

[kosta50]

If it is up to a person to REMAIN elect, then the Biblical concept is moot

Only if you cling on to +Paul, as interpreted by Protestants. Truly, you need to move on and diversify your biblical references.

"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" (1 Pet 4:18)

[HarleyD]

Well, I’m only here tentatively. My computer is still broken. :O(

Let me tell you my computer store, which was suppose to have fix it by now, has felt the wrath of Harley!!!

[HarleyD]

Not really. You are spreading a myth which has no historical or factual backing.

If it is as you suggest, the early Church should have taken it upon themselves to teach the early Christians to read the scriptures. But it is rather astonishing that Peter, who by all accounts was "uneducated", yet he still seems to be able to have read Paul's writings. I wonder if the Roman Catholics would like to think of their first Pope as someone who was illiterate. It would make writing all those early papal decrees questionable since Peter wouldn't have been able to read what was written.

It is a historical fact that Protestants labored to get Bibles into the hands of their people, Catholics and Orthodox did not. I know we've discussed this a while back, perhaps on a different thread. I believe the first Orthodox bible is due for release very soon. Well, at least they have the New Testament and Psalms available.



Any day now, after 2100 years, the Orthodox are about to catch up with the rest of us. Of course see how you don't believe in much of the Old Testament, Paul's writings, or Peter's writings one has to wonder what's the point?

In fact, it seems we are reversing the trend, as the literacy rates appear to be declining.

I'm a little confused. From the title of your chart, it shows the "illiteracy" rate declining, not the literacy rate.

[Quix]

No huge disagreements with that post.

I don’t consider the differences amongst the Trinitarians to be sufficient to expect such will keep them out of Heaven.

Thx.

[Quix]

True enough.

HOWEVER, you seem to be ignoring GOD’S RESPONSES to the ways various people worshipped Him.

I prefer to observe God’s words and responses

and to

LEARN

from them.

[Quix]

BTW, somewhere in the last month . . . had it open but had to reboot and lost it . . . I don’t know if it was you, an RC or one of the Hyper-Calvinists.

someone asserted that Pentecostals did not have good scholarship or had a poor reputation in terms of scholarship.

Reputation and reality are quite different sometimes.

Given that this is somewhat in the middle of my dissertatioin, I can assert emphatically that such a public notion, set of opinions are WHOLESALE FALSE.

Pentecostal scholarship stands up to the best. This is true at ORU and Robertson’s University as well as others on a case after case basis.

The whole idea is basically unfounded brazen bias and ill-informed opinion.

[Quix]

I think you might like at least parts of today’s contribution to the

ONE ANOTHER DEVOTIONAL

at post #192

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1811920/posts?page=184

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, God is a runner of slaves to righteousness...

It does not appear that Christ is respecting men here.

AMEN!

"For there is no respect of persons with God." -- Romans 2:11

And we see Peter agreeing with Paul...

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10:34-35

The question then becomes who is able to be righteous and thus judged well according to the fruits of his life? And the answer is all and only those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, according to the will and purpose of God who determined the names of His children from before the foundation of the world...

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13

As you've noted, we are either servants to sin or servants to righteousness. There's no middle ground. How do we become servants of righteousness? Paul explains...

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." -- Romans 6:16-18

We're able to act righteously and "obey from the heart" because God gives His children a "new heart" with which to understand and believe.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." -- Ezekiel 36:26

With this new heart we are able to comprehend the reason for our salvation -- Jesus Christ upon the cross. We then become "servants of righteousness" not by our own efforts, but by Jesus Christ's redemptive sacrifice. His righteousness becomes our own and we are acquitted of our sins.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21

It's all Jesus Christ, all the time, everywhere for everything, whether the world recognizes this fact or not.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17

[kawaii]

‘the rest of us’ being english speakers who’ve spent 400 years destroying the meaning of scripture to suit their favorite sins.