'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/

[hosepipe]

[.. I think we already know how you feel about this. So, what are you going to do about it? Complain ad nauseum? ..]

No.. but you have a point its quite lame of me to do it..
Its Gods problem not mine.. if it is a problem at all..
It just bothers me.. and I suffer from terminal honesty..

[hosepipe]

[.. What I posted was a historical fact regarding Luther, not an opinion survey. ..]

Poor Martin Luther never intended to start a religion those following him did.. He always wanted to be accepted back into the RCC after it was cleaned up a bit.. Martin didn't "see" much..

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Don't hold back, kosta50. Tell us how you really feel.

[Alamo-Girl]

The leaning I have in the Spirit concerning 2 Peter 1:20-21 is exactly as I have described it at post 14246. His is the only leading I follow.

[Forest Keeper]

Nope I was referring to Phil 1:20 "Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death." Christ was not always exalted in his body. Combine this with Gal 1:16, where he says that God revealed "His Son in me." Was Christ "in" Him all along, i.e. always, but he wasn't conscious of it until God [sic] revealed (i.e. uncovered) this to Paul?

I think that's a bit nit-picky. Paul knew full well that Christ was not IN him until he got sledge-hammered. He preached the standard salvation model, that I follow, everywhere he went. He didn't have secret contrary beliefs.

I think this is one of the reasons Kolo (and I) find Paul difficult, even disagreeable, and wonder why would anyone ever listen to him.

If I had a nickel for every time I've been accused of ingratitude to YOUR GUYS for sticking him in the Bible..... :)

He is verbose and pompous and his language is inaccurate; to me he sounds like a used cars salesman. You never know what exactly he is saying because he could be saying all sorts of things, and he is saying different things to different audiences.

What, and the Gospel authors didn't speak to different audiences? :) Plus, EVERY Biblical author could be saying all sorts of things according to men. That's why we're here! :) Paul is no different. Besides, when you criticize what Paul wrote, Who are you really criticizing? All scripture is God-breathed and inerrant.

Yeah, well go back to Romans 15 and read nothing but boasting and conceit that comes out of +Paul. That really alienates him from the rest. Of all the Apostles, he lacks humility so crucial for Christian phronema.

Again, you are not criticizing Paul. I understand preferring some books of the Bible, or authors, over others because they "speak" to us more profoundly, but to openly attempt to discredit a book or an author is something I just don't understand in Christianity.

[Forest Keeper]

God finished His work by the 7th day. God does not exist in time. We don't know what God "does" in heaven. He is perfect and His work is perfect. Perfect means finished, complete. What is there 'left' for God to do. And, after the End of Times, with the new earth and the new heaven (why new heaven?), what will God do "then?" Your anthropomorphism places a necessity on God to "do" something.

God finished His work in CREATION on the 7th day. That says nothing about His other work. In addition, God does indeed exist in time, He is just not subject to it. God isn't governed by time, but He sure does work within it. Does God hear our prayers today? Does He continue to work miracles on earth? Does He lead us? Does He show up for the Eucharist? How can you say God no longer does anything?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Protestant bible thumpers are like overzealous mothers who force-feed their children whether they are hungry or not, whether they have already eaten or not, whether they need it or not.

Do you have kids, Kosta? I can't say that I've ever had to "force-feed" mine. I'm fortunate that they eat what I cook for them. On occasion, they even say thank you.

there is a limit to which we can drink it before we begin to gag and drown on it.

You're comparing Scripture to drowning? Just the opposite...

"And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.

The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.

I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.

They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD." -- Jonah 2:2-9

...personal opinion as the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Certainly we're supposed to try the spirits according to Scripture to make sure they come from God. But you appear to believe that the Holy Spirit actually doesn't do much of anything in this life. What do you think this verse means?

"And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand hand, and when ye turn to the left." -- Isaiah 30:21

I read the following verse and believe it speaks directly to me. Does it speak directly to you?

"This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me." -- Psalm 119:50

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen. If God didn't work inside of time as well as outside of time the entire creation would cease to be.

Life, matter, air, past, present and future -- all exist by the contemporaneous will of God.

[.30Carbine]

The convincing power is God's alone. He is Light. And He speaks to us individually

Thank you, and amen.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the history lesson, AG! :) That’s a great quote from TR. I hadn’t heard it before. Thanks also for talking about your trip to Italy. I’ve never been overseas, so I love hearing first-hand accounts like yours. :)

[fortheDeclaration]

FOREST KEEPER: If Mary was cleansed of "ALL" sin at Incarnation, and never personally sinned again (if ever), then what did she need Jesus to die on the cross for? Or, how did she benefit from it? KOSTA; So that she may be resurrected. Frankly, that's a non-answer since anyone who has been cleansed of their sins by Christ's atonement will be resurrected. Period. Unless you know of someone, Kosta, for whom Christ died who will not be resurrected.

In point of fact, everyone who ever lived is going to be resurrected, the question is, where are they going to spend eternity in their resurrection bodies, with God or in the Lake of Fire. (Rev.20, Dan.12)

As for Mary not sinning, don't you think that 'losing' your son, and trying to find him for 3 days a sin, at least by omission?

You would think that the 'Queen of Heaven' would have been more careful with the Son of God.(Lk.2).

Today, she and Joseph might have been brought up on child abuse charges.

[fortheDeclaration]

Ah. Don't tell me another time your mariophobia has no deleterious effects. God did not send Christ as God. God sent Christ as Man.

Mariophobia-LOL! as opposed to Mary worship (Jer.44)

God sent Christ as both man and God, begetting Him in the womb, thus, Christ was both man (born of a woman-water) and God (having God's blood-Acts.20:28)-1Jn.5:6-8

As for the Church, God is building the Church (Eph.2:20-22) and sends Pastors, teachers and evangelists (having sent Prophets and Apostles before the completion of the New Testament Canon) for the Church's edification and perfecting of the saints (Eph.4:11).

Note-all believers are called saints.

[HarleyD]

The vitriol against dispensationalism is as thick as I have ever seen on these threads. Why would that be? Because we are unbiblical? So you would claim. But if (and we aren’t) were were, what is the harm? Has it effected our evangelistic zeal? A HUGE number of evangelical Christians are indeed pre-tribulationists and dispensationalists. Evangelicals send out a slew of missionaries everywhere and Southern Baptists

Blogger, you're correct to say these dispensationalist arguments have been rehashed over and over again. I don't wish to get dragged into discussions about prophecy throughout the scripture. And, as you've stated, not much has change.

For over 1900 years the church historically has held three differing views on eschatology; Post, Amil, and historical Premillennialism. While each view offers legitimate arguments on eschatology, they all agree on the fundamental principle that God blesses believers only. He does not bless, nor has He ever blessed, those who have no faith in Him.

I remember reading The Late, Great Planet Earth in the early '70s. It's not an exaggeration to say that it was similar to Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life in popularity among both Christians and non-Christians. Mr. Lindsey had everything laid out and it sounded very reasonable. Trouble is none of it ever happened. The world changed and Mr. Linsey's paradigms evaporated. Yet Mr. Lindsey is in his third revision, tailoring his book according to world events; fitting prophecy to events around us. Shouldn’t that make one a little suspicious that he just may not understand what he’s talking about? The post-modern dispensationalist view isn't rooted in anything except loosely cobbled together verses following news events. It doesn't even parallel historical premillennial arguments. There is no historical basis for any of this. Yet it remains immensely popular.

You asked, “What is the harm?” To me, people like Hal Lindsey, Scofield and Rylie are dangerous (and, yes, that is a correct word) although they probably don’t understand their error. They are Christians who are saying God loves people who reject Him. This is a dangerous position to be in and to be touting. It was never the view of the church but it is now. This view has so crept into the church today that it permeates just about every facet of every church and has lead to the post-modern church we see today. Sin and God's wrath are minimized to a point that it is barely visible in but a few churches who dare to teach this truth. The Post-Modern will ask, "If God loves everyone, why doesn’t He love those in Africa who practice some kind of pagan ritual, a Hindu in India, a homosexual cleric?" The harm is the subtle change that has occurred; that God loves us in spite of our rejection of Him. God loves everyone. God loves Israel despite the rejection of His Son, therefore God must love all mankind for their rejection of His Son. After all, isn't the God of the Jews the same as the God of Christians? The answer is no!

God does not love the Jews any more than He loves the Hindus. God's wrath rests upon this world. Every time God graciously showers His blessings upon us, and we reject His mercies, we store up wrath and judgment against us. God calls all men to repent and come to the Son. Those who spur God’s message will not find fellowship with Him, but His wrath will rest upon them. The reformulation of Israel, is divinely inspired for whatever purpose, but it is not because God favors the Jews. One only has to read the book of Judges to discovered what happened when Israel fell away.

[fortheDeclaration]

a 'church' has two connotations. One, is the Church as the Body of Christ and that connotation is spiritual. Thus, only believers in Christ enter into that relationship with Him, being 'born again'. That is the Church as 'organism', growing and alive. The other connotation of a church is as an organization. An unbeliever can be a member of that type of church, as many are.

True to a point. However, that ignores the parables of Christ that discuss those trying to enter the Kingdom, that Body of believers, are a mixed group. Christ talks about a winnowing at the harvest time, a separation between goats and sheep, weeds and wheat. This tells us that even the "nominal Christians" are part of the Body, thus, making the organizational "Church" more closely in tune with the Body of Christ, not the "hidden" component.

That parable (not actually referring to the church age) shows that are those who are part of churches who are not saved and backs up my view rather than yours.

Thus, they may belong to 'churches' but are not saved and thus, in the real Church, the spiritual one. (Rev.2:9)

In reality, there is no such thing as a 'norminal Christian' you either one or not.(Mark.16:16 cf 1Cor.12:13)

All churches have people in it who are not truely saved-even Baptist ones!

Now, a organizational 'church' that does not teach the truth of God's saving grace, and substitutes man's traditions for God's truth is a dead church

Now we are entering the realm of your personal opinion. Your opinions of the "teaching of God's saving truth" are just that, opinions. They are one of many different possible readings of the Scriptures. By our fruits, we are known. And I see lots of good fruit within the Catholic Church.

No, they are not 'opinions' they are clearly taught in scripture, which you reject because you take the opinions of men over the truth of God (Mk.7:7-9)

The Pharisees' were also zealous for 'good works' but that could not save them.

You are not submitting to the righteousness of God which comes by faith (Rom.9:30)

Christ preached Sola Scriptura.

Ridiculous. I have not had ONE Protestant prove that to me from the entire Bible yet, and I have seen all the arguments. Now, you are narrowing it down to just Christ's words? Prove it.

Christ never cited one man's opinion on anything.

He always used scripture to support His statements.

That is why He always spoke with power and authority

As for Sola Fide, it is very much taught in the New Testament by Paul (not of works-lest any man should boast) and James is not speaking of works leading to eternal life.

We've already been through this, and you are confused if you think that James is talking about the physical life. Talking about twisting Scriptures out of whack! We ALL physically die, whether we have faith or not! James is talking about spiritual death, because our life and death in THAT realm is determined by our faith and works - since faith alone is dead. Works of love, in faith, don't save our physical body!!!!

Nice double talk.

James is speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.

He is telling them that without works (producing fruit) they will be disciplined by God, including losing their life.

So faith alone cannot save a believer from discipline in time, if he is not obedient to God's will.

That is backed up by 1Jn.5:20 (sin unto death) and Jn.15:2 where the Lord states that the Father takes away any branch that doesn't bear fruit, but prunes those who do (testing).

Nowhere in James 2 is eternal life mentioned.

What Roman Catholics have is a 'cultic method' of interpeting scripture, using a few scriptures and ignoring all those that contradict or explain them.

Didn't Peter say that twisting Paul's writings leads to destruction? (2 Pt 3) I'd advise you re-analyze the false belief of sola fide that is explicitly denied in Scriptures

Yes, he stated that the 'unlearned and unstable' were wresting Paul's scriptures, which is exactly what you are doing to mix faith and works-which Paul stated very clearly cannot mix (Rom.11:6, Eph.2:8)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Yes, BELIEVES! TODAY. Not 10 years ago like you seem to say with your "once saved, always saved". Christ expects us to believe today and tomorrow and so on. Present tense.

No, salvation is an event which puts you into union with Christ.

The scripture teaches that even if you lose your faith, Christ remains faithful (2Tim.2:11) since He cannot reject Himself.

So the Bible clearly states that a believer can lose his faith and still remain saved (Eph.4:30).

Paul is using the 'historical present' If Paul wanted to indicate continual action, he would have used a participle-'believing'.

Regards

Likewise.

[redgolum]

There were some bishops who left with Luther, and a few who ended up so by default.

As the BXVI and the papal primacy, the Pope can’t change it. To do so would bring a whole lot of the post Schism doctrines into play, and would probably set off a lot of other schism in the RCC.

[redgolum]

I suspect it has something to do with the English Civil War, and the expulsion of the Anglican bishops after Cromwell’s Puritians won. At least I have seen it expressed that way once.

[Quix]

Actually, it is true that God loves all . . . even those who reject Him.

Dismissive rejection of God’s Promises to His Buddy Abraham is a shocking denial of Biblical truth, to me.

God’s Love won’t insure folks Salvation apart from their Acceptance of Christ etc.

God has clearly, in Scripture, scheduled at least the remnant of Blood Israel’s acceptance of their true Messiah.

God is not such a wimpy, incompetent, poor planning God to have promised Abraham only to flub it all and fail to be able to fulfill His promises to the letter and last detail, as Christ indicated about fulfillment of the last tiniest punctuation mark of Scripture.

Blood Israel is a stark and eternal object lesson for mankind and for all Creation. And God it not at all finished with that object lesson.

I do suspect that He notices, however, those rejecting the Biblical prophecies and promises related to Blood Israel.

[blue-duncan]

“For over 1900 years the church historically has held three differing views on eschatology; Post, Amil, and historical Premillennialism.”

What is your authority for either of the Postmil positions being over 1900 years old?

[topcat54]

Actually, it is true that God loves all . . . even those who reject Him.

"The Lord is in His holy temple, The Lord's throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. 5 The Lord tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. 6 Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind Shall be the portion of their cup. 7 For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright." (Psalm 11:4-7)

"These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren." (Prov. 6:16-19)

"As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.'" (Rom. 9:13)

[hosepipe]

[.. And, frankly, jibberish to me is the indiscriminate (ab)use and blasphemy of using the Lord's name in vain every time some self-rigtheous, self-styled Christian decides to defend his or her personal opinion as the revelation of the Holy Spirit. ..]

Painful eh!.. I know the feeling whenever someone refers to his denomination/cult as "THE church".. when it isn't.. But I will get over it..