'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."

Annalex: The notion of absolute predestination may be found too, especially in Romans 8:29f, but it is not prevalent

Sounds like a round-about way of saying that +Paul wasn't always preaching the Gospel, without actually saying it.

FK I would disagree that Romans 8:29 is a lone wolf verse...Eph 1:3-5 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ"

Sounds great! But Genesis tells that's not how it happened. God created us out of dirt (inorganic stuff, as Alex correctly put it in another post). Adam and Eve were not "adopted" through [sic] Jesus Christ.

Just as we did not choose to be physically born, so also do we not choose to be born again

Being born spiritually is a figure of speech. It is a metaphor for belief. The way it is used is a play on words. A misleading play at that. We come to a belief when we realize that something greater than we can imagine created all this.

Jer 1:5 : 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This is also classic predestination...

He wrote that in retrospect. Anyone can say the same thing: "God predestined me to do this..." in retrospect. What is always lacking is prospective knowledge of this kind.

Fact is, the Church does not teach Paul as the Protestants interpret him because the Church concentrates on other apostolic teachings and find a common denominator or the most prevalent denominator as the orthodox teaching. The protestants simply take Paul as the standard and fit or reject the rest.

The Church certainly does not teach Pauline predestination as the Protestants do, and neither does it teach Pauline doctrine of atonement as they do.

For obvious reasons, the Church will never say that any one of the Apostles was wrong. But at the same time, the Church will not build its theology based on one of them, even an essential one (who also happens to be a controversial self-appointed later-comer whose teachings were not always in synch with the rest).

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear kosta50!

They say opposite things. That much is certain.

No they do not say opposite things when we discern the revelations of God in the whole of Scripture, by the indwelling Spirit.

But anyone can pick phrases or sentences out of context and declare a contradiction. Muslim and atheist activists do this a lot on the internet in their efforts to turn believers away from Christ. The irrational hatred of Judeo/Christian belief and believers stands as evidence that more is at work than scholarly debate.

If one attempts to superimpose Aristotlean logic on God, he will no doubt see many Scriptural violations of the Law of Identity (e,g. Trinity) and Law of the Excluded Middle (either/or e.g. predestination v free will.) Likewise, if he begins with the presupposition that all that exists is what he can perceive with his own senses, he will reject much or most of Scripture.

For many this results (whether intentionally or not) in their anthropomorphizing God – i.e. rejecting anything about God which the mortal mind cannot obtain. These cannot know anything but a conceptualization of a small “god.” The others however may have an evil intent, namely the spirit of anti-Christ or anti-God.

And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God...Luke 4:41

Two things about this: first, demons were not what we think of "demons" (that had to wait until the Middle Ages), and two, what they are saying is that he is the Jewish messiah, the anointed of God, not that he is God himself.

To the contrary, even presuming a strictly Jewish Messianic meaning to the term “Christ the Son of God” – the phrase “Son of God” means the devils were saying Jesus Christ is equal to God the Father:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. – John 5:18

You asked in reference to Luke 4:41:

What's the point of that verse anyway?

I raised it to contrast between “knowing” as in recognizing (which the devils did here, recognizing who Christ is) versus “knowing” as in intimacy (Christ knowing us, our knowing Christ.)

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

Look, this clearly contradicts Luke 4:41 where the demnons say they believe...yet John says I don't know you because you don't believe...which is it?

As James also says, the demons believe and they tremble. Again, the difference is between “knowing” or believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and “knowing” as in the intimacy.

Also you have the cause/effect wrong. It is not “I do not know you because you don’t believe.” Rather, the first cause in this case is that the Father draws whom He will to Christ, then those who are drawn to Christ spiritually (not physically) hear Him, then Christ “knows” them (intimately) and they follow Him. That is why Peter is called the rock by The Rock.

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

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

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

Not recognizing this sequence of cause/effect can result in man’s erroneously thinking that he has any power at all to redeem himself – e.g. by teeth gritting determination plus good deeds, etc.

me To paraphrase, if we declare Christ, He will declare us – if we deny Him, he will deny us

You And here I though faith was a free (unconditional) gift of God as they say. Seems like there are some heavy ropes attached to this.

It is certainly a gift of the Father to be drawn to Christ. And certainly Christ’s atonement is nothing that any of us could have earned. Indeed, if it were possible to be “good enough” then Christ died for nothing.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. – Galatians 2:21

But God is perfectly just. And we will all be held accountable not only for what we did in this mortal life – but for our intentions, our thoughts. The good that we might “do” in life which is motivated by our desire to win the praise of others will be loss. The measure we use in judging others, He will use in judging us. If we are merciful, we will obtain mercy. If we think a sin, even if we do not physically carry it out, we will be held accountable. And so on. (Sermon on the Mount) If we do nothing with the gifts He has given us we will be held accountable (parable of the talents.) If we choose not to follow the Spirit, we will be in peril (Romans 8.) If we deny Him, He’ll deny us, etc.

My musings on the Great White Throne Judgment is this: everyone Christ “knows” (book of life) will make it into the new heaven and earth. But many of us will find ourselves in poverty – heavenly ‘hippies’ – because we squandered the gift of grace while in the flesh. Some who have devoted their entire lives to the ministry – but for self-serving reasons – will find themselves impoverished and sitting in the back of the congregation. And others may be astonished to see what treasures they have laid up, or being assigned a place in the front of the congregation, because their motives were pure. The first will be last, the last will be first.

Only Paul (and one verse in Acts, probably under Pual's influence) says that Christ was raised by God. The Church professes that Christ rose on the third day. At no time was there a separation between His human and His divine nature. Christ did not need "God" to raise Him any more than He "needed" the Spirit to lead Him into wilderness. Christ's divine nature was suffcient to lead him and to raise Him.

The perceived conflict is not real, it is the consequence of superimposing Aristotle’s Law of Identity on God. Christ is God.

This anthropomorphizing of God is among the reasons why I’m so adamant about eschewing the doctrines and traditions of mortal men.

and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Obviously, reading wasn't an option. So much for sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is among the doctrines and traditions of men which I eschew. However, I hasten to point out that the “hearing” which matters is not physical (words spoken or read) but spiritual..

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

The ones Christ is speaking to here were physically hearing Him (sound, pressure waves) – but they were not, indeed could not, spiritually hear Him. God the Father had not drawn them to Christ.

In sum, terms such as “knowing” “believing” “hearing” require spiritual discernment. (I Cor 2)

Thank you so much for this interesting sidebar!

My musing is that God is ever in control moving the course of history together towards the new heaven and the new earth.

I do not consider it a coincidence that Daniel prophesied of Alexander the Great, nor that Alexander the Great learned at the feet of Aristotle who learned at the feet of Plato. As a result of his conquering the civilized world, the Greek language was "normalized" and became the common language of the civilized world; and certain word concepts became common knowledge, e.g. Logos. Thus the ground was prepared for the spreading of the Gospel to the gentiles.

Also, because of this Hellenization of the Jews - the Essenes withdrew from mainstream society, the result being that the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved thus proving the faithfulness and true antiquity of Scripture.

This passage stands out:

And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. – John 12:20-24

Everything works together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

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.