'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."

The knowledge the Gnostics claim is also supposed to be "divine revelation." Of course the only thinkg lacking is the proof in both cases.

If one has not received a divine revelation or vision - he has no basis for recognizing one or even for accepting that such things occur.

Truly, every Christian has received at least one divine revelation: that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is not something man can arrive at by mental reasoning or by closing his eyes, covering his eyes, gritting his teeth and repeating over and over to himself "I believe."

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. - Matt 16:16-17

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

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: - 1 John 4:2

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:26-27

annalex: Is it your contention that the Church receives the Holy Spirit but does not give it to anyone?

Dr. Eckleburg: Believers receive the Holy Spirit. Believers make up a congregation. The Holy Spirit speaks to and regenerates the individual heart of each believer. The congregation and the groups of congregations making up the church exist to preach the Good News of the Gospel and to enjoy glorying God in unison.

The church exists by the will of God, led by the Holy Spirit, to serve Jesus Christ. Not vice versa.

Everything, absolutely everything, is subordinate to Jesus Christ.

Indeed. Thank you so much for your excellent post!

Truly, the thought of the Church - or any thing other than a mortal man - being able to receive the Holy Spirit strikes me as bizarre since Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a man, telling him that he must be born again.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:5-6

Actually, even imagining a mortal man "receiving" (as in physically catching) the Holy Spirit strikes me as odd. It is a rebirth.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:8

A 'dead' faith cannot save one from physical death as stated in Jn.15:2, God will remove those not producing fruit.

I'm not sure that I read the verse quite that way. :

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. KJV

Now, the NIV, which I normally quote, says "cuts off" rather than "taketh away". That makes this a little more difficult for me. Nevertheless, I have taken either phrase to mean general discipline by God, or possibly death, as you see it. The problem I have with the death option is how to reconcile it with (POTS) verses like Phil. 1:6. He carries the good work on to completion. The death option appears to imply that man can thwart that good work begun. I don't think I can buy that because it would seem to destroy POTS. However, there is logic in your reading since "pruning" is specifically and separately mentioned. Frankly, I'm not sure what the best explanation of this verse is. :)

Moreover, one can have a 'dead faith' and still be saved as shown by 2Tim.2:13, 'if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself', indicating a believer who has lost his faith, yet remains saved.

"Dead faith" is probably too strong for me. :) To me a dead faith is a false faith, is no faith. I don't think we can completely lose a once held true faith. We can wander or suffer, but I don't think the scriptures teach that we can totally abandon the gift of God. We are, after all, a new creation. We are permanently changed, for all time.

you're missing his point

He has no point. He has froth around his mouth. I showed why his jabs at the Church do not follow from the scripture he pretends to be reading. Let us see if Westmister Confession, and your remarks, patched his opus up sufficiently for the whole to begin to make sense.

Papists believe their good works can earn them salvation, while Protestants know that good works are the result of the Holy Spirit opening our hearts to God because of Christ's atonement alone

I understand the Calvin's throad clearings had to do with it. Problem with this statement is, either the Church does not teach it or there is no scripture to back it up, depending how you weasel around the words. Good works, we teach, advance out sanctification and are necessary for salvation as they form faith. They do not earn salvation in any transactional sense, but rather they form our faith, and of course all of it is only possible because of the merits of Christ. This is what the scripture teaches (2 Romans 2:6-10, James 2:11-26, Luke 17:5-10, 1 Cor 13:13), and Calvin should be addressing. Naked sloganeering is not helping his cause.

Calvin here refers to the fact that the RCC teaches you must be forgiven over and over and over again

He is referring to that, but he is wrong and does not provide any support for his error. I covered that in my previous post.

Baptism flows from the Holy Spirit and is accomplished by the will of God, not the will of the church.

I do not dispute that the individual baptism and the individual gift of salvation go together; I would not dogmatically put one over the other as the scripture does not do so; your own speculation does. The decision to baptize or not baptize belongs to the sponsors and secondarily to the Church. Regardless of the individual disposition of the participants, any valid baptism is baptism into the Catholic Chruch, as there is no other. If Calvine has any dispute with this Catohlic teaching. he failed to express it.

Believers make up a congregation

This is not scriptural. "I shall build my Church", not "you shall make up congregations".

invisible/visible

is an exptrascriptural speculation. The scruiptural truth is tha tthe Church is the mystical body of Christ, build on the rock of Peter, one body, one doctrine, one baptism.

Sorry to be tardy with my reply! I ran out of steam last night.

Please, show me why is Mat 7:21-23 "true" and Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13 and Joel 2:32 are not.

They are all Truth. Cherry picking Scripture can result in a perception of paradox which is not real.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

The cherry picked verses are shown in context below, the operative phrases which reveal the unity are underlined:

In this passage, Christ says that calling out His name is not evidence that He “knows” a person:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. - Matt 7:21-23

This is not “know” in the sense of recognize – but “know” in the sense of intimacy. The devils for instance knew Christ and spoke His Name:

And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking [them] suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ. – Luke 4:41

When Christ “knows” us – He makes that intimate connection – that baptism of the Holy Spirit which makes us a new creature in Him:

I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. – John 10:14-15

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:26-27

Other uses of the term with this intimacy meaning:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Gen 2:17

Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you. – Deu 9:24

They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. – Deu 32:17

Marital intimacy is a “type” of this knowing:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. – Gen 4:1

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. – Eph 5:31-32

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. – Matt 19:6

The following passage speaks to our profession of faith. To paraphrase, if we declare Christ, He will declare us – if we deny Him, he will deny us. The person who calls upon the Name of the Lord is the one Jesus Christ knows in Matt 7 and John 10:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? - Romans 10:9-14

See also:

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. – Matt 10:32-33

The following passage - and Acts 2:21 which cites it - reaches to the end of what began at Pentecost, i.e. Christ’s millennial Sabbath reign on earth which is followed by the new heaven and earth. The calling out to the Lord is by all flesh upon whom God has poured out His Spirit, those who enter His rest, the remnant:

And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. - Joel 2:28-32

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Acts 2:16-21

Truly, every Christian has received at least one divine revelation: that Jesus Christ is Lord...And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." - Matt 16:16-17

But, A-G, it is obvious that Peter did not really believe. If he did, he would not have denied Christ; he would not have started sinking on the lake, etc. He said he believed, but when challeneged, his faith failed.

If his faith was given, as you say, then his faith was also taken away. We have no control over it. If God gave Peter the faith to say what he is quoted as saying Mat 16, then God must have taken that faith away from him when he denied Jesus shortly thereafter.

But, the truth is, Peter did not say Jesus is God. We read into this for obvious reasons. In the context of the Jewish mindset of a simple fisherman, he said (stripped of all the hyped tag-names) "You are the anointed one, the favored one of the living God." He does not say that Jesus is God.

Those favored by the living God (i.e. son of God) was a title of angels (benei Elohim, sons of God, as in Job), powerful Jewish kings (of Davidian line), even powerful individuals, or simply those in "filial" relationship with God (adopted by Him):

"Be like a father to orphans, and instead of a husband to their mother; you will then be like a son of the Most High, and he will love you more than does your mother" (Sirach 4:10)

Every Jewish king was believed anoinited by God. And Jewish messiah was supposed to be a Jewish king in the literal sense, and therefore anointed by God, not divine. Peter is simply stating that Jesus was that (future) king.

Many people think Jesus was condemned because He claimed to be the Son of God. That is patently false! He was condemned because He claimed that He had the power to forgive sins, which made Him equal to God, and that was blasphemy.

When you really think about it, the scenario is a mind-boggling: a poor carpenter from Nazareth convincing a dozen or so illiterate peasants and fisherman that He is really the savior king of Israel, and that they are His royal lieutenants.

It was probably believable until things started getting rough, then the whole thing fell apart. The real belief did not start until after His resurrection (a percieved miracle and not some divine "message" from God, downloaded into their hearts, as Paul claimed his).

But even then they doubted and wanted "proof." Thomas doubted aloud. But they all had their doubts. Not one of them is quoted as saying "Of course! I knew it" when the news reached that that Christ was no longer in His tomb.

What makes us Christians is an irrational belief (or hope) in bodily resurrection. But even Paul teaches to the contrary: "I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." [I Corinthians 15:50]

This tells me that Paul believed (consistent with his Judaism) in spiritual resurrection, but not one of the body (this would also be very consistent with some other very Gnostic statements of Paul's earlier writings).

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.