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

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

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

It appears you may be introducing a third option. If a person must REMAIN elect, then that erases any idea of predestination of any sort. If one's state of election is constantly in flux, then what is your concept of predestination?

No, you got it right the first time. I am merely describing from the point of view of the faithful, who does not have the divine TIVO and is effecting his own election by his free will. In most places, the scripture adopts the same view, because it is more important to tell the faithful to make the right choice than to instill augustinianism in him.

"profits" vs. "accounts". What's the difference?

"Flesh profits" refers to the flesh of the faithful receiving a nutrient. "Flesh accounts" would refer to the flesh of Christ being eaten. The flesh of the feithful does not profit from eating the tiny wafer, just as the verse indicates; but the flesh of Christ accounts for the whole lot as it was broken on the Cross.

I think he is describing who the new person is.

Yes.

new slavery is NOT voluntary

Of course it is. You choose to repent, grow in faith and obey the Gospel.

Dear Bro, I read this post and like so many with such erudite words and references . . .

I STILL

come away feeling . . . ‘tis much ado about RELATIVELY NOTHING.

GOD’S ESSENTIAL WORD IS TRANSCENDENT IN VIRTUALLY ANY REASONABLY QUALITY TRANSLATION.

I’m beginning to think that these slightly different versions are another test from our Master . . .

will you draw from the written Word AS MY SPIRIT LEADS YOU DAY BY DAY—REGARDLESS OF THE TRANSLATION

AND

WILL YOU LOVE EACH OTHER in the process whether they eat meat or don’t eat meat as you do; read the same identical text or don’t read the same identical text as you do

or NOT.

It appears disturbingly often that the answer from individual after individual but especially group after group is . . .

!NOT! HARUMPH!

I imagine DADDY shaking HIS head going . . . HAVE IT YOUR WAY . . . but you won’t like the results!

imho

The following from your excellent post are such important ponits, hope hey become a persistent manta on FR for yet the lates crop of new lurkers. The points are that crucial to following God generally and following God through His written Word.

LUB,

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

But I take nothing as Truth unless the Spirit personally authenticates it to me.

As if to underscore the importance of the canon, He faithfully authenticates all of the books of Scripture. And yet He sets off an alarm within me when something is lost – such as God’s name, The Rock from the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 – or added, such as the word “most” to an erroneous quote from the NASB translation of Luke 1:42 in reference to Mary but not Jesus.

So I trust God, I believe Him, I count on Him – not men.

A central leaning He has given me is that God the Father has indeed revealed Himself in four ways: through His only begotten son Jesus Christ, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, through the Scriptures and through His Creation.

For what it’s worth...

The New Testament leaves no doubt that the Apostles were really not sure Who Jesus was or what His real mission entailed. "So when they met together, they asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'" [Act 1:6]

Yes, and the behavior of many of them during Jesus' ministry backs this up.

However, Jesus made His mission very clear: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24] Paul believed otherwise (because Matthew's Gospel wasn't written yet). He was convinced that gospels were intended for the Gentiles.

Paul didn't believe otherwise at all. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Paul tells us:

Rom 9:6-8 : 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel . 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

If one is correct in interpreting Jesus to mean that He only came to save one biological race, then we are wasting our time being Christian. Did Jesus change His mind? Did Paul convince Him that He was wrong? But, if Paul is correct that "Israel" includes those from all races, then we are included. Plus, can you show me where Paul says that the Gospel should not be preached to the Jews? Paul recognized that his own calling was to the Gentiles, but I'm not aware that he had anything against the Jews being taught. He WAS a Jew.

In fact, Paul had his own mission: to preach his 'own gospel' [Rom 2:16, 16:25], and 'our gospel' [2 Corinthians 4:3], declaring that he proclaimed fully the gospel of Christ [Rom 15:19] (wouldn't that make the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John superfluous?!), ...

Superfluous? No, by that standard the individual Gospels would make each other mostly superfluous. You know the cross-references. Paul preached fully the Gospel of Christ because it was given to him directly BY Christ.

[continuing] ... admitting that it was always his ambition [Romans 15:20], yet more than half of his life he either knew nothing of Christ or persecuted His followers with impunity!

I know you know the story of how Paul came into his knowledge of Christ. He was converted on the most personal level possible. His old life was gone, a new life had come.

When it comes to Jesus, Paul considers Him the "Son of God," but not the same as God. That is clear from numerous verses ...

Nice try, but no sale. :) Your verses do not show that Paul didn't recognize Jesus as God. Here are some examples:

Col 2:9-10 : 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father.

Heb 1:8 : But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

I think Paul got it alright. He had a pretty good teacher.

Paul also emphatically maintains that God [sic] raised Jesus*.

God the single essence did raise Jesus, who else would have? As I have shown, Paul did recognize Christ as God. He calls Christ "Lord" a hundred times or more. (The first meaning for "kurios" is "God". I doubt Paul would use the term so often if he always meant a second or third meaning.) Therefore, he knew that as the lifeless body lay in the tomb, the divine Christ was no longer there (Father into your hands, etc.). Don't you even say that during this time, He left to go into Hades? So, Paul knew that God (the Godhead) as a whole raised the body of Jesus.

*This is later completely rejected by the Church as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) states "he suffered, and the third day he rose [not God raised Him!] [sic] again (was there more than one resurrection?!!!)"

He rose because God raised the body. Divine Christ was in on the whole thing. I don't see any controversy in any of this.

Rather, one of the Gospels suggests that even Christ believed He was inferior to the Father: "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28].

So is this verse wrong and not God-breathed? Wouldn't we both just say that it needs to be taken in context and needs a simple interpretation? This one, at least, isn't difficult.

If anything, one can see why Doceticts and Gnostics had a field day reading the New Testament.

I'm not sure if you are saying that Paul was flat out wrong, and so we should rely on the Church "instead" of his writings, OR, do you mean that Paul was right, but he wrote so poorly that only through the Church can his cryptic teachings be gleaned? Or, something else.

Thank you for your concern, annalex! And thank you for including the verse in context, DarthVader!

But, of a Truth, dear annalex, it is hardly a "private interpretation" when the author Himself confirms that He is indeed the author. That is, after all, what the passage says (from DarthVader's post:)

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.*

Unless of course you doubt Him. Or perhaps you doubt that He would confirm it to me, personally?

But of course I know otherwise because I have known Him personally for nigh onto a half century. Moreover, all Christians should come to know Him this way (John 1-4, 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2, etc:)

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? - Luke 11:13

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. - I John 4:13

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