'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/

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

I don't believe God puts limits on how much we know Him; pride does.

I’m very confident no creature – regardless of the time allowed to him – will ever be able to contain the full knowledge of the Creator. But I strongly agree that pride can get a man “stuck on stupid.”

That [is no record of a Jewish trial per se] doesn't surprise me. I guess Jewish Apostles don't rank prominently in their circles as historical sources to be considered.

Actually the linked article covers the subject rather well for a webpage and does include Christian sources.

Christ's followers were hardly a threat to anyone. If Christ was a threat to Romans, Romans would have written something about Him. As it turns out, Romans treated Him as an internal Jewish matter not even worthy the parchment to write a single word about Him…. The Gospels show that the Sanhedrin and the people gathered, not the Romans, wanted Jesus dead. In fact, the Gospels portray Romans ans a moderating factor.

As the linked article explains, the Jew’s fear of the Romans was the factor. Roman fear (if any) is irrelevant.

me: Er, the free part is that there is nothing mere man can do to be "good enough" for God

You: Wow! And here I read:

"But if when you do what is right and suffer for it, you patiently endure it this finds favor/grace ( χαρις ) with God." (1 Pet 2:20)

Sure seems like +Peter believed that doing the right thing does earn you grace (charis) with God!

Peter is speaking to Christians, not to persons who have not yet been redeemed by Christ. And in that passage, he is exhorting those Christians to endure patiently when they suffer for doing the right thing. Here it is in context:

For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: - 1 Peter 2:19-21

You continued:

Of truth, dear A-G, everything you have to say about God anthropomorphizes Him because (a) you use human words to say it, (b) human words cannot describe the indescribable and (c) because the Spirit does not use words. So whatever any person says or writes about God is by necessity anthropomorphism.

To the contrary, I testify that the Spirit does indeed use language – far better than any mortal known to me, i.e. He brings words alive within. He also authenticates Scriptures, i.e. that He is the author of them.

Moreover, His is a spiritual language, and those of us who experience His indwelling speak in the same language. An arms length observer would think we are using ordinary words, but the conversation between those who have the “mind of Christ” is taking place in a whole ‘nother sense. (I Cor 2)

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. – Hebrews 4:12

For others, the Scriptures are merely text on paper or ancient manuscripts compiled by fallible men – subject to intense scrutiny, scholarly debate and most especially, skepticism.

What is in heaven is pristine. What is there to be purged? Purge implies impurity, imperfection, corruption. What is there in heaven that needs to be purged?

Heavenly creatures to be purged include the angels chained in darkness till the judgment (Jude 6) and Satan (Rev 20). Nevertheless, all of this heaven will be removed, and the new heaven will begin. I do not know why God chose to do it this way instead of some other way, perhaps you should ask Him?

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. – Rev 20:11

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. – Rev 21:1

You continued:

me: Since the indwelling Spirit brings words recorded in Scripture alive within me through the indwelling Spirit – He is the One I’ll be listening to, not any mortal

You: That is the lamest possible argument, A-G. It is an attempt to "win" an argument empty-handed.

I do not expect you to receive my testimony – but I would be a liar if I said other than the truth and I would be unfaithful to God if your objections bothered me.

And I can say the Holy Spirit is telling me you are wrong.

You can say anything you like. But God is Truth.

I am glad we agree on something. But being a "placemarker" on a wave does not make the phenomenon a "particle." So, it's not that radiant energy is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave; energy is energy regardless which matrhematical box we stuff it in. The uncertainty of the duality is entirely imposed by our working models, and not by the reality of what radiant energy really is.

For Lurkers: radiant energy is usually electromagnetic. The four fundamental fields are electromagnetic, gravity, strong atomic and weak atomic. A field is defined as existing in all points of space/time. In the wave/particle duality – the discipline for investigating particles is generally quantum mechanics whereas the discipline for investigating waves is generally quantum field theory.

To tje House of Idrael and the House of Judah (Heb 8). God makes no promises to Gentiles.

To the contrary, there are many promises which do not come with a gift tag but rather are worded like this:

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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 1:11-13

You continued:

Indeed. Scientific method proves only that the model works, not that what it does is based on exactly as things are. Supernatural explanation is treated as "magic," and disallowed. Trouble is, supernatural (shouldmn't it be supranatural?) is what is from God, and cannot be explained, quantified, measured, described, explained or otherwise "made sense of." So, how can it be considered?

Science should respect the epistemological divide. Instead there are many scientists (Dawkins, Pinker, Singer, Lewontin, Monod et al) who are doing theology under the color of science, i.e. metaphysical naturalism.

God is impartial. Nevertheless, He does seem to use some for His specific purpose because they are the right tools in His workshop.

And collectives also – such as the tribe of Levi or the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea and so on.

[Quix]

Moreover, His is a spiritual language, and those of us who experience His indwelling speak in the same language. An arms length observer would think we are using ordinary words, but the conversation between those who have the “mind of Christ” is taking place in a whole ‘nother sense. (I Cor 2)
= = =

So very true.

[Forest Keeper]

Jesus and God are one Person.

"God" is one Godhead and our Lord Jesus is one person. But what you say is also correct. So, if you acknowledge that "God" is included with Jesus then you must agree with me that Jesus did not raise Himself EXCLUSIVELY of "God". Your statement supports my position that "God raised Jesus" is NOT inconsistent with "Jesus rose".

Jesus did not need "God" from the side to resurrect, ...

I thought you just told me that "God" is never "to the side" of Jesus. I agree.

... just as he did not need the Spirit to "guide" Him in the desert, ...

In the scripture, I don't think there was ever any expression of "need", just an expression of "deed".

Many a heresy sprang out of the words chosen by the Apostles, and much rationalizing took place to deny what otherwise seems obvious.

Well, were they GOD'S words, OR were they the Apostles' words? Any words written in any language are subject to "heresy". God decides on whom to bestow eyes and ears.

FK: "This has always been a standard method of preaching."

Among apocalyptic Jews, yes. But not 'away,' because that sect was of relatively recent origin.

I was really talking more about us Christians today. :) As ironic as I know it must sound to you, this is how we preach! :) For example:

2 Cor 6:2 : 2 For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

I know that "the day" means since Jesus has come, and so it is correct today that every day is "the day" of salvation. No one can know if he will wake up in the morning or not, and we also know that a day is coming when it will be too late. Therefore, I include the idea of urgency, generally, to prospects in witnessing.

While I would not be shocked if it happens, I do not personally have a firm belief that the end will happen in my lifetime. However, since the stakes are so high, as they always have been, there is no service to the prospect in condoning procrastination.

[Forest Keeper]

Dr. E.: "Our presuppositions must always be that the truth is knowable, insofar as God reveals it to us in Scripture."

Kosta: "The Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus say the same thing, yet they all 'know' a different 'truth' in their scriptures."

Kosta, I hope you do realize that the Orthodox Church is in the same pot with the Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, as far as YOUR point goes. You can't tell me that the truth is unknowable, yet your Church has all of the "important" answers. You also "know" a different "truth". How shall we judge? Mormonism is younger than FORMAL Reformed theology, which is younger than Islam, which is younger than Orthodoxy, which is younger than Hinduism. Does this help us to know which truth is correct?

How about numbers? It has been argued to me before that since a whole "church" believes something, that it must be true, as opposed to the Spirit leading others identically to different beliefs than your Church's. Well, you outnumber the Jews and the Mormons, but after that you can't come close to the number of believers in the other categories. So, that can't be right either. "Consensus theory" doesn't work here at all.

It's really a matter of faith, and who and what we pick to be our respective authorities, isn't it? I am only writing this because you keep bringing in all these other religions and I don't see what that has to do with anything in this discussion.

[Forest Keeper]

The Protestant notion of election advanced here on this thread was unknown for 1500 years after Pentecost. It is a revisionist notion quite disconnected from the Greek NT save in the spin of the likes of Strong.

No, the Protestant notion of election has been REJECTED by YOUR Church for the vast majority of years since Pentecost. Neither of us can say to what degree it was believed by the people or not until the Reformation. Augustine, who couldn't have been a lone wolf, absolutely put forth the idea, and I assume that counts as being "known". In fact, many of Augustine's ideas are agreed to by today's Protestants, so I reject any idea or suggestion that Luther, Calvin, et al., just "made it all up" in the 16th century.

As to the "spin" of Strong's, as you say, you are in a minority. Strong's is the most widely used and respected Christian concordance of the KJV in the entire world.

[Kolokotronis]

“As to the “spin” of Strong’s, as you say, you are in a minority. Strong’s is the most widely used and respected Christian concordance of the KJV in the entire world.”

Considering that Latin Rite Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox make up the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world, I sincerely doubt that Strong is either the most widely used or respected concordance. Now that said, I obviously was in a particularly and uncharacteristically pissy mood when I posted #13518, wasn’t I! Sorry!

[wmfights]

In fact, many of Augustine's ideas are agreed to by today's Protestants, so I reject any idea or suggestion that Luther, Calvin, et al., just "made it all up" in the 16th century.

The Scriptural basis for our understanding of election is a direct threat to the power the RCC claims to have. So it's not surprising that during the dark ages, when church and state were merged, that any open discussion about it would not be allowed.

After all you can't have a bunch of people running around believing they are saved without the church controlling the process. ;-0

[Quix]

After all you can’t have a bunch of people running around believing they are saved without the church controlling the process. ;-0
= ==

VERY well put.

That old business about power corrupting . . . can’t get much more powerful than combining church and state.

[kosta50]

Kosta to Dr. E: "The Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus say the same thing, yet they all 'know' a different 'truth' in their scriptures"

FK yto Kosta: Kosta, I hope you do realize that the Orthodox Church is in the same pot with the Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, as far as YOUR point goes. You can't tell me that the truth is unknowable, yet your Church has all of the "important" answers

And I say to you that we all can't claim the Truth and not recognize it as one and the same. In other words, as far as we are concerned, someone's truth is not the truth but ours is (regardless of the reasons)! We believe that our version is the true one, but we don't know it. Faith is hope, not fact.

It's like that show where all contestents say "I am such and such," and the MC says "will the real such and such ...please stand up" and they all stand up! We immediately know that not all can be the one and the same, but we don't really know who is or isn't, yet we believe that one of them is.

[kosta50]

Thank you. You are most kind.

[kosta50]

Wouldn’t want to hinder you from your excellent productiveness on the other threads anyway—unless, of course, THE LORD had something of value for you in my humble mutterin

No, no. It's not a hinderance, God forbid. I just feel too stretched right now with so many concurrent threads and issues. I just don't have enough time to devote to another complex and alrgely unknown subject, and give it the attention it deserves.

Please forgive me if I have come across as dismissive. That was not my intention.

[kosta50]

God" is one Godhead and our Lord Jesus is one person. But what you say is also correct. So, if you acknowledge that "God" is included with Jesus then you must agree with me that Jesus did not raise Himself EXCLUSIVELY of "God". Your statement supports my position that "God raised Jesus" is NOT inconsistent with "Jesus rose"

I am afraid you are treating Jesus as man, with God "inside" of Him.

[kosta50]

Kosta:... just as he did not need the Spirit to "guide" Him in the desert, ...

FK: In the scripture, I don't think there was ever any expression of "need", just an expression of "deed"

Why then is the "need" to mention that the Spirit was with Him? The Spirit is always with Him. But not to "take" Him into the desert.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for keeping me in the loop on this sidebar!

We can never know how things really are – and that is (paradoxically) the only certainty we do know.

Precisely so. That is part of the "observer problem."

On the "if/then"s - I strongly agree with betty boop that they are causal per se, i.e. cause/effect.

Complementarities are more akin to the two sides of a coin. It's not a coin without both sides.

However, if it comes up "heads" when tossed, you might win something in which case the observed event is causal though heads/tails remain complementary.

[Quix]

Might be in the ball park but “most” is stretching it, Bro. But I appreciate the comment.

[Quix]

You did not come across as dismissive at all. I knew precisely what you meant. I do watch your postings a fair amount! LOL.

[kosta50]

However, if it comes up "heads" when tossed, you might win something in which case the observed event is causal though heads/tails remain complementary

No, they are actually mutually exclusive (either-or). One wins, the other one loses. They eliminate each other.

If-then is conditionally complementary. They re-informce each other.

[Quix]

Sorry, but when reading dialogues such as this one . . .

I often wonder when we’ll be discussing the angels on pin-heads issue.

[kosta50]

Thank you Q. I appreciate that.