'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]

That would make one wonder why America Orthodoxy would be different from any other type of Orthodoxy? They are simply following cultural trends of the nation

In those countries the predominant religion is Orthodoxy. The individual cultures were built around Orthodox faith, incorporating it into the way of life, not the other way around as is the case in America.

Trying to fit a culture into Orthodoxy doesn't change Orthodoxy; it only gives it ethnic "flavor." Trying to fit Orthodoxy into a protestant/secular culture does.

[kosta50]

Thank you for you insihgts. If Jesus could doesn’t mean we can. Leprosy is not very contageous unlike its first cousin tuberculosis. You could live for years among lepers and never catch the disease. But what is called leprosy in the Bible is not Hansen’s Disease (true leprosy) but more like psoriasis or similar (non-contageous) dermatological condition. True leprosy was unknown in the Middle east during Jesus’ times.

[Alamo-Girl]

I wish to withdraw from the dispute between the doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church and Calvinism – because I personally eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men.

God is my entire focus. I am pro-God – so my comments here are directed toward any mortal thought or behavior as it concerns Him – regardless of its "label."

I don’t understand what your contention is. The clergy actiong in the person of Christ effects the sacraments of the Church, under the canon law that the Church establishes. Why? - As my Father had sent me so I send you; - bind and loose on earth and accordingly it will be bound and loosened in heaven

The Father does not relinquish His authority to the Son – they are One. The Son’s will is the Father’s will. (Gethsemane) He is the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of His person. (Hebrews 1:3)

Likewise, the Son does not relinquish His authority to us, who are now dead to this world but alive with Him in God (Col 3:2, Gal 2:20) That includes Peter and his successors.

IOW, our authority and power is only because our will is the Son’s will which is the Father’s will. That is how we are One in Him and He in us. The indwelling Spirit is He who keeps us in Him, in His Light (John 17, Romans 8, I Cor 2)

The power is His. The glory is His. The authority is His.

We have no power, no glory, no authority of our own will.

Whenever our will slips and is not His will, we are in dire jeopardy. Jesus is the vine, the Father is the husbandman and we are the branches. (John 15) We can do nothing apart from Him!

In other words, the power of God, the wisdom of God is in Jesus Christ – not in us or our institutions, doctrines or traditions. (I Cor 1:24)

Jesus Christ baptizes in the Holy Spirit – not John the Baptist, not the priest, not the minister, not the Church.

Those of us who abide in Him, believe Him and trust Him make our petitions to God the Father through our high priest, Jesus Christ. (Hebrews)

The accoutrements whereby we do this is not the point – whether by anointing with oil, laying on hands, speaking prayers from a pulpit or by written text, asking someone else to pray for us, obtaining credentials through study or an organization – or whatever.

Our motivations, the desires of our hearts is what matters. The Father hears what we think and what we say in secret.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. – Matt 6:5-6

The binding and loosing applies to all of us, the responsibility for intercession applies to all of us, witnessing about Christ applies to all of us. We all have the responsibility to bring forth fruit to the Father (John 15).

No one can usurp God’s authority – or ours.

And we must not relinquish our responsibilities as a member of His family (Romans 8, John 1) to anyone else. We are - each and every one of us - responsible for bringing forth fruit to the Father. (John 15, Galatians 5:22-23) If we fail, it will be on us not on someone else.

My contention is and always will be: To God be the glory.

[hosepipe]

[.. 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. ..]

An element of God(father, son, holy spirit) becoming "HUMAN" is indeed mind boggling.. Not THAT any human that ever lived could/can/or will ever fully grasp the reality of it..

What God is cannot be grasped intellectually by logic.. by anyone except God himself... surely not by a bunch of teenagers(apostles).. Anyone(you/me) expecting THEM to grasp the full import of the events transpiring around them (about Jesus) is silly in the extreme.. Even the word Messiah barely covers a small part of Jesus ministry.. The creator becoming (like) one of the created is very creative.. Even as one of the created Jesus was infinitely more than that..

All the authors of both testaments even guided and anointed by the Holy Spirit could only share what they could mentally grasp.. even with a "vision/revelation".. Judging those authors harshly can only be done by one that has never had a "vision"..

[betty boop]

What makes us Christians is an irrational belief (or hope) in bodily resurrection.

So kosta50, are you a Christian or a Jew? (I.e., do you believe in bodily resurrection or not?)

I get the impression you don't much care for the "irrational".... And like Doubting Thomas, require convincing proof of the things you'd like to believe.

But faith itself is "irrational" -- at least in the sense that it is the evidence of things unseen, yet nonetheless known (yes I know, this is a paradox).

.

[betty boop]

Thank you oh so much, dearest A-G, for this gloriously beautiful essay/post!

[Quix]

Excellent wisdom and Scriptures, of course.

[Quix]

Many excellent points, including this one:

The accoutrements whereby we do this is not the point

[1000 silverlings]

Job is a story that tells us never to blame God for our misfortunes, not a test.

Wrong once again.

Job, Theology of; Temptation, Test

23:10 But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your testimony and insights!

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.

Peter had the seed of the faith, the initial divine revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord. Every Christian has this. (parable of the sower)

Where and how we go from there, our maturing (“working out our salvation” Phl 2:12) in Him – is different for each one of us. Some, for instance, never taste spiritual “meat” but are always on “milk.” (I Cr 3) Peter stumbled quite a bit as he matured. Paul hit the ground running. John and Mary (Luke 10:38-42) – in my view – found the “good part.”

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.

You are quibbling over the translation. The Jews were expecting the anointed one, the Messiah. Their error then, and now, was in expecting the Messiah to be a mortal king and conqueror only. They never saw Him as the Lamb of God. Jesus did not open the eyes of the Apostles to this Truth until they had to know it. They could only handle so much at a time:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

The operative part of the passage is not what Peter said but what Jesus said, i.e. what it meant – that the Father revealed it to him, flesh and blood did not reveal it.

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 16:17

The point is that Peter was the first to receive this revelation from the Father. That is what made Peter the “rock” in the context of The Rock (Deut 32:4):

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

You continued:

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.

When they knew Christ in the flesh, they knew Him as another being – spatially separated from their own persons. But at Pentecost, that knowledge became quite personal and they began to share in the mind of Christ. (Acts, I Cor 2, Romans 8, etc.)

There is no doubt that Christ lives for those of us who "know" Him because He "knows" us!

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).

There is a physical body and there is a spiritual body. After the resurrection, Christ’s body was quite real - but it was a resurrection body and thus different from the one He had before.

Thomas was able to thrust his hand in His side – and yet Christ appears to several without revealing His identity and in other instances, appears in the midst of a closed room. This is the type of body we shall also have:

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45

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

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body. – Romans 8:22-23

A presumption that the spiritual body and the resurrection body are mutually exclusive - or that the resurrection body is physical or non-physical (either/or) - is again superimposing the Aristolean Law of Identity on God.

God's power is not limited to man's logic.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your beautiful post, dear brother in Christ!

The creator becoming (like) one of the created is very creative.. Even as one of the created Jesus was infinitely more than that..

Amen! Praise God!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

I get the impression you don't much care for the "irrational".... And like Doubting Thomas, require convincing proof of the things you'd like to believe.

It certainly seems that way - not unlike many of our correspondents on the science threads.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all of your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

I read many things from the book of Job - but the one which stands out is when God confronts Job in chapters 38 to 42 for speaking words without knowledge. In common jargon, putting words in God's mouth.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don't think this discussion has been about Calvinism, but about the distinctions between the Roman Catholic/Orthodox faiths and the Protestant faith.

Frankly, AG, many of your posts used to go right over my head. They seemed too personal, too inward.

I was suspicious.

Then as God would have it, I returned to reading Calvin and found in his writings many of the same things you were saying.

I can imagine Calvin, mired in the dark ages of idolatry and lies, reading Scripture and exclaiming -- "Here it is! Here is the Holy Spirit speaking to me personally. Here is the Holy Spirit showing me my salvation at the feet of Christ on the cross. Here are the words of God who tells me Christ has paid for every sin and I am now justified in His eyes by the sacrifice of His Son. Here is the Holy Spirit opening my heart and giving me understanding and quickening my mind and illuminating every page of Scripture.

B.B. Warfield about Calvin...

"His theological method was persistently, rigorously, some may even say exaggeratedly, a posteriori. All a priori reasoning here he not only eschewed but vigorously repelled. His instrument of research was not logical amplification, but exegetical investigation. In one word, he was distinctly a Biblical theologian, or, let us say it frankly, by way of eminence "the Biblical theologian of his age." Whither the Bible took him, thither he went: where scriptural declarations failed him, there he stopped short. It is this which imparts to Calvin's theological teaching the quality which is its prime characteristic and its real offence in the eyes of his critics--I mean its positiveness. There is no mistaking the note of confidence in his teaching, and it is perhaps not surprising that this note of confidence irritates his critics. They resent the air of finality he gives to his declarations, not staying to consider that he gives them this air of finality because he presents them, not as his teachings, but as the teachings of the Holy Spirit in His inspired Word. Calvin's positiveness of tone is thus the mark not of extravagance but of sobriety and restraint. He even speaks with impatience of speculative, and what we may call inferential theology, and he is accordingly himself spoken of with impatience by modern historians of thought as a "merely Biblical theologian," who is, therefore, without any real doctrine of God, such as Zwingli has. The reproach, if it be a reproach, is just. Calvin refused to go beyond "what is written"--written plainly in the book of nature or in the book of revelation. He insisted that we can know nothing of God, for example, except what He has chosen to make known to us in His works and Word; all beyond this is but empty fancy, which merely "flutters" in the brain. And it was just because he refused to go one step beyond what is written that he felt so sure of his steps. He could not present the dictates of the Holy Ghost as a series of debatable propositions."

Sound familiar? It did to me. And so while we probably still disagree over the meaning of some parts of Scripture, I believe we both have good reason to be confident our paths are being led directly by the Holy Spirit who will eventually, progressively and perfectly bring every thought to Christ and every child of God to the covert of His wings.

This was always revolutionary thinking. During the time of Christ, during the time of the Apostles, during the Reformation and still to this day -- the truth of the Holy Spirit has many enemies who seek to drown out its voice and erase its presence and supplant it with men and magisteriums and the priestly class and wooden idols and a variety of extra-Biblical sacraments that actually defame the word of God.

As if it possibly could.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you...

But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." -- John 14:16-18;26

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold" -- Job 23:10

Amen. If we begin our understanding with the truth that God is in control of His creation, every word of Scripture becomes a positive and encouraging exhortation to righteousness.

"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." -- 1 Peter 4:1-2

[blue-duncan]

“Frankly, AG, many of your posts used to go right over my head.”

Frankly, many of both of your posts still go right over my head. But then, I am male!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That’s because you’re ducking. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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

Now see, most Protestants would be embarrassed to write that. "Good works...form our faith?"

Faith is in the "good work" accomplished by Christ on the cross. Period. Not in our own good works which are as filthy rags to God. Christ, our redeemer, does not share that title with those He redeems. Our sins are nailed to His cross and He carries every one of them.

He has froth around his mouth.

LOL. No, I think he's "got milk!"

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" -- 1 Peter 2:2