'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/

[Alex Murphy]

That was the plan, that was always the plan – from the foundation of the world. Everything moves towards the new heaven and new earth, God and His family....That is why I aver that it has always been Christianity, though the majority of Jews didn’t “get it” in their day – nor do many of them understand it even now.

Great post, A-G. Amen!

[Quix]

I say on an RC station here on cable at Salida CO

the ending of a prayer to Mary

with the phrase

“grant us, Oh, Mary”

or something to that effect, the key issue being that the prayer was

REQUESTING MARY to GRANT, BESTOW the request—

NOT requesting Mary to ask Jesus to grant the request.

More evidence . . .

faulty Mariology = faulty Christology

yielding

Mary = Christ

[adiaireton8]

You are misunderstanding what is meant by Catholics when they say "grant us, Oh, [Saint]" in a prayer. You are interpreting those words through a hermeneutic of suspicion, instead of through Catholic theology. The Catholic mind intends and perceives such phrases as meaning only that the saint accomplish the request by means of intercession; it does not by such a statement intend to equate the saint with Christ.

-A8

[annalex]

Do I understand you correctly to say that Baptists believe that the “water” Christ speaks of in John is amniotic fluid?

This seems to be the teaching I heard from several Baptist sources here. Note that the passage in John 3 uses both "womb" and "flesh", but the Baptists, out of scriptural literalism, no doubt, prefer to think that Jesus introduced yet third way to speak of natural birth, "water", to distinguish it from "baptism" (which, of course, has nothing to do with "water").

[annalex]

Noah knew the effects of wine (Matt. 24:38) and yet became drunk (Gen. 9:20, et seq.), thus shaming himself

There is no sin in that; the only sin that the scripture mentionsi is of Cham.

I doubt you are making a case that Mary's lifelong sinless club is joined by all the people you mention above. :) Or are you?

I think that it would be reasonable to conclude that all who are described as perfect in the scripture were in fact perfect, or else the scripture would not describe them so. The Church does not hold any such belief dogmatically (the belief in the sinlessness of Mary is dogmatic), but in the realm of scriptural analysis, we would have to conclude that indeed Noah, John the Forerunner, and perhaps some others were indeed sinless.

we cannot conclude that she asked for a miracle

You speculate beyond scripture here, again. The response Christ gave her indicates that He understood her as requesting a miracle.

That doesn't follow logically, etc.

I don't know how else to explain it. When Jesus was found int he Temple, she did not have a full understanding, yet at Cana she requested a miracle, and both events precede the Centurion episode. The faith of the centurion is so impressive precisely because he only knows of Christ from others. He and Mary are the exact opposite in terms of how close they are to Christ, hence the comparision was not made to Mary but to others equally infamiliar with Him.

We see no presence or participation by Mary when Jesus gathered His disciples for the first time.

They followed Him, Yes, with some skepticism (John 1:46), but at Cana Christ "manifested His glory", St. John teaches us, and that was, he says, "the beginning of miracles", and done on Mary's request.

That would make Mary the person of power here, and the text just doesn't support that at all

The adoption is mutual "thy mother ... thy son". It could be that on the economic level John was taking care of Mary, but given the solemnity of the circumstance we Catholics see a deeper truth about discipleship and Mary told here. In Apocalypse 12 Mary is seen as the queen, thus certainly a person of power.

This presumes that Mary could have somehow stopped the Incarnation as God had planned it

God foresaw her response as He foresees all that He predestines, but on the other hand, God would not want to rape anyone, so yes, we have to conclude that she could have stopped the Incarnation if we believe in the goodness of God.

[annalex]

The idea of a direct line is a myth as there are gaps in it, the most glaring being the Apostles not directly appointing the next generation of leadership

The breathless ease with which the enemies of the Church ignore the scripture they profess to follow is amazing.

3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. 7 And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith.

(Acts 6)

[HarleyD]

Do I understand you correctly to say that Baptists believe that the “water” Christ speaks of in John is amniotic fluid?

Forgive me for butting into this conversation that I have not followed. Here is what John Gill, that great Reformed Baptist, had to say on John 3:5.

except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, מלות שנות, "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word, which shows, that the ordinance of water baptism is intended: nor has baptism any regenerating influence in it; a person may be baptized, as Simon Magus was, and yet not born again; and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a Gospel church state; yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life and salvation: such a mistaken sense of this text, seems to have given the first birth and rise to infant baptism in the African churches; who taking the words in this bad sense, concluded their children must be baptized, or they could not be saved; whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see Eze_36:25. Which is the moving cause of this new birth, and according to which God begets men again to, a lively hope, and that by which it is effected; for it is by the grace of God, and not by the power of man's free will, that any are regenerated, or made new creatures: and if Nicodemus was an officer in the temple, that took care to provide water at the feasts, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, and as it should seem Nicodemon ben Gorion was, by the story before related of him; very pertinently does our Lord make mention of water, it being his own element: regeneration is sometimes ascribed to God the Father, as in 1Pe_1:3, and sometimes to the Son, 1Jo_2:29 and here to the Spirit, as in Tit_3:5, who convinces of sin, sanctifies, renews, works faith, and every other grace; begins and carries on the work of grace, unto perfection;

John Gill viewed "the water and the Spirit" as the grace of God and the Spirit of God. In other words, man had to be saved by God's grace (water-metaphorical) and by God's Spirit. Man can not rely upon his "free will" to come to know God. He must be born by these two elements.

I would refer you to his Eze_36:25 passage which is a clear comparison of verses. Please note how he also states that the Church wrongly interpreted this to mean that grace was imparted through baptism and, thus the need for infant baptism.

Up until Augustine's day baptism was always a mystery. Augustine, in one of his works, talks about the problems they had in trying to figure out the meaning of baptism. Us Baptists have always had this figured out. ;O)

All Baptists, to my knowledge, believe in Original Sin. However, there are a variety of Baptists and it wouldn't surprise me to find a group or two that does not. (Nothing surprises me any more.)

[annalex]

What do you mean God did not send Christ as God? He was sent as both, since He WAS both

The Incarnation is God becoming Man. The Second Person of the Trinity was "there from the beginning", eternally begotten. The Incarnation happened when Christ assumed human nature through Mary. Of this even He spoke whe He said "As my father sent me".

not to the exclusion of other Christians

The scriptural method of "sending" is sacramental imposition of hands (Acts 6); we also expect unity of doctrine ("is Christ divided?"), and on that basis exclude those who are separated from the Church either sacramentally or doctrinally.

[Kolokotronis]

“Up until Augustine’s day baptism was always a mystery.”

Where did you get this idea? The Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and other early writings speak quite specifically of real water, like the stuff we drink.

“Augustine, in one of his works, talks about the problems they had in trying to figure out the meaning of baptism.”

Probably because he couldn’t read Greek.

[Blogger]

Unassociated with Baptists, “baptistic” is nonsensical.

Back to our discussion. You want to see a biblical defense of the blessing received by participating in Lord’s supper and Baptism verses the grace that is received not of our own merit but by the good pleasure of God’s will?
1) SCRIPTURE: Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) and 1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

QUESTION: If Baptism were a means of conferring grace upon a person and a lack of baptism somehow means a lack of sanctification, why would Jesus not baptize? and why would Paul be thankful that he had baptized only two converts?

2) SCRIPTURE: Luke 22:And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me [is] with me on the table.And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

QUESTION: If grace were conferred upon those who participate in the Lord’s Supper, how is it that its power did not extend to Judas Iscariot who took part in the very first Lord’s Supper. I fully realize that you do not (presumably) believe that grace is conferred upon the unregenerate in the Sacraments. Therefore, this verse is more for those who hold that there is some special power in the elements themselves which is salvific in nature.

Scripture: 1 Corinthians 11: 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

QUESTION: In this discussion of the Lord’s Supper, Paul is speaking with Christians as is evident in verse 2. He was speaking of those who came to the table with wrong motivations. If, for Christians, the Lord’s Supper were a means of conveying grace upon the individual believer, then why is such emphasis placed upon the actions of the individual, their motivations, and even punishment for taking it unworthily. Would not the grace inherent in the supper be sufficient to overcome the shortcomings of the one who came to the supper hungry and had his/her physical needs in mind rather than the sacrifice of Christ? If not, then the said grace inherent in the sacrament is dependent upon the good deeds and motivations of the communicant. If it is dependent upon good deeds and motivations of the communicant, it is no more grace. Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Therefore, to be consistent in our definition of grace, we have to declare that 1)grace is a gift at God’s discretion 2) it is independent of human works 3) It is different from the blessing which we see in Scripture is often a result of human obedience and works.

Turning these examples around and applying them to blessing, we see blessings as gifts of God to us and from ourselves to each other that may or may not be linked to His grace but can most certainly be connected with human works. The communicant with bad motivation is not blessed by participating in Lord’s supper because God’s grace is somehow lacking in the life of the believer. To the contrary. We are full of God’s grace from the moment of salvation. Rather, the ill-motivated communicant brings the opposite of a blessing, a curse, upon himself/herself because they took the moment too lightly. Is this curse a loss of salvation? No. That is of grace. Rather, this curse is sickness and even death for some of them.

Paul and Jesus not baptizing is also not an issue. Being blessed has nothing to do with your sanctification. One rejoices when one is blessed. One is sad when a blessing is lost. Yet, God’s grace saves regardless of the state of blessing one is in. Paul’s gladness wasn’t due to any disdain for baptism. Rather, the church had divided into factions that saw who they were baptized as being some greater claim to God’s power in their lives. Well, I was baptized by Apollos! Oh yeah, I was baptized by Peter. Paul said “I’m glad I didn’t baptize any of y’all!” (Didn’t know Paul was from South Tarsus did you?) “17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. “

FINAL QUESTION: If the gospel pertains to our justification, sanctification and glorification, then why would Paul have said that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but preach the gospel? Wouldn’t that have been contradictory if baptism really were a sanctifying grace?

[Quix]

So that she may be] resurrected.

Sounds like jury-rigged, assumed [not even inferred, extrapolated--nothing sufficient Scripture to even infer, extrapolate from] jury-rigged, doctrines of man theology, to me.

[Quix]

INDEED.

God’s plan from the foundation.

Paul makes very clear that Blood Israel is to be brought back into the fold at some point AFTER THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES. What’s so difficult about that?

Sigh.

[Quix]

You are misunderstanding what is meant by Catholics when
they say “grant us, Oh, [Saint]” in a prayer. You are interpreting those words through a hermeneutic of suspicion, instead of through Catholic theology. The Catholic mind intends and perceives such phrases as meaning only that the saint accomplish the request by means of intercession; it does not by such a statement intend to equate the saint with Christ.

So, now we have doctrines of man concocted from things God did NOT say in Scripture

using words and phrases they don’t mean but

which the normal definitions of which are

anathama to God

and we are supposed to think

this makes perfect Biblical sense?

LOL
ROTFLOL
GTTM

[kosta50]

Thank you AG. I told you already that endless verese generation does little for me, so I will cease this otherwise intriguing discussion because, frankly, we are moving away from principles and your replies are beginning to resemble verse "water-boarding."

You missed my point – or if you didn't then your answer was lost in endless verses – which was (and I even placed a disclaimer) that Gentiles (the goyim) were not only non-Hebrews but Jews as well, in fact, anyone who worshiped idols.

My point was that there was no "gray" area where one could be a Gentile "a little bit" (à la Christians i.e. uncircumcised and not keeping dietary laws) and be considered anything but a goy. That applied even to the Jews who did not keep the Law.

There is no "grafting" as an idea or a possibility anywhere in the OT or in Christ's ministry. The kind of flexibility we see introduced with +Paul simply was never there; nor did Christ ever mention it.

The OT teaches nothing but contempt for the Gentiles (Jews and non-Jews alike), even genocide. In this mindset there was no room for Christ to preach for the inclusion of the Gentiles and (no wonder) He never did teach inclusion of the Gentiles; it was, as Acts 13 shows, an afterthought subsequent to a failure of Christianity to survive in Israel.

[kosta50]

Sounds like jury-rigged, assumed [not even inferred, extrapolated--nothing sufficient Scripture to even infer, extrapolate from] jury-rigged, doctrines of man theology, to me

If you say so. It must be true, Quix says it is.

[kosta50]

At any rate, the apostles were not expressing a Judaic pagan-influenced belief by answering Jesus’ question

Sorry, AG. If they believed Christ was Jeremiah, they believed in reincarnation. Christianity doesn't believe in reincaration. Resurrection is not reincarnation, contrary to what you say.

My point was, and is, that it doesn't matter what the Jews believe. We are not Jews, but Christians. I have no business seeking kabbalistic or buddhist wisdom or mysticism in hopes of finding greater thruth than what is contained in Christianity.

[kosta50]

Frankly, that's a non-answer since anyone who has been cleansed of their sins by Christ's atonement will be resurrected

Well, he asked and I told him the truth then. :)

Unless you know of someone, Kosta, for whom Christ died who will not be resurrected

I don't. The Book says everyone will be resurrected. The sheep as well as the goats. What happens afterwards is a different story...then comes that part about the deeds, so if you think faith is all you need ...

[hosepipe]

[.. The OT teaches nothing but contempt for the Gentiles ..]

Not so... God whistled for the gentiles to come and GET the Jews several times.. to teach them a lesson.. Was only marginally successful.. until Titus and the diaspora in 70A.D. (or so).. God used the gentiles(goyim) like a rented donkey.. still is useing them too..

Not all christians are christians.. nor Jews; Jews..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

“Good deeds” are a result of our new birth in Christ, not the cause of it.

The only “good deed” that saves anyone is Christ on the cross.

Thank God we are saved by Christ’s righteousness alone.

SAVED
by Bob Dylan

I was blinded by the devil,
Born already ruined,
Stone-cold dead
As I stepped out of the womb.
By His grace I have been touched,
By His word I have been healed,
By His hand I’ve been delivered,
By His spirit I’ve been sealed.
I’ve been saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved,
Saved,
And I’m so glad.
Yes, I’m so glad,
I’m so glad,
So glad,
I want to thank You, Lord,
I just want to thank You, Lord,
Thank You, Lord.
By His truth I can be upright,
By His strength I do endure,
By His power I’ve been lifted,
In His love I am secure.
He bought me with a price,
Freed me from the pit,
Full of emptiness and wrath
And the fire that burns in it.
I’ve been saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved,
Saved,
And I’m so glad.
Yes, I’m so glad,
I’m so glad,
So glad,
I want to thank You, Lord,
I just want to thank You, Lord,
Thank You, Lord.
Nobody to rescue me,
Nobody would dare,
I was going down for the last time,
But by His mercy I’ve been spared.
Not by works,
But by faith in Him who called,
For so long I’ve been hindered,
For so long I’ve been stalled.
I’ve been saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved,
Saved,
And I’m so glad.
Yes, I’m so glad, I’m so glad,
So glad, I want to thank You, Lord,
I just want to thank You, Lord,
Thank You, Lord.

[Quix]

Of course, I believed and believe it to be true else I’d not have said it.

But time and God will tell.

I still believe that word choices and phrasing are important—particularly when the thread of idolatry is so near . . .

GRANT US OH BELOVED MOTHER MARY . . .

just does not sound like fitting adoration or respect

at all.