'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/

[adiaireton8]

I don't know that you do, A8.

Then it is not the case that you "have plenty of ground for believing X over ~X." (#14,7867). Therefore, since as I pointed out in #14,778:

"Trusting that X" reduces to "hoping that X" when there is no ground for believing X more likely than ~X",

your "trusting that X" reduces to "hoping that X".

-A8

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Hi, Q. I think Calvinists believe the Holy Spirit primarily speaks through Scripture. But no Calvinist would deny the Holy Spirit can and does do anything it wants to do regarding men and faith. Our hearts and eyes and ears are opened to God by the Holy Spirit; our minds are quickened to understanding His word by the Holy Spirit; our paths are directed by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you that modern times have all but ignored the Holy Spirit and this is a grave error. I think the great arena of apostasy in the 21st century is an outright denial of the Trinity. We see it all the time from a variety of voices. And to relegate the Holy Spirit to an after-thought is just giving up the game before it's over.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Thanks for the ping. Boy, there is a lot to peruse to get somewhat acquainted with in this discussion.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. I trust my "x."

I don't know what "x" you trust, A8. Good luck with it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It's probably prudent not to refer to this thread as "this" discussion. "This" discussion has covered a lot of ground. LOL.

But that's part of the fun of it. You can just jump in wherever you feel the water is the warmest. 8~)

[jo kus]

I don't know of any two Bible-believing Protestants who fundamentally disagree on salvation such as you suggest.

Please, FK. Not sure where you live and whom you associate with, but clearly, you are not very familiar with alternate Protestant theologies.

For example: Is baptism salvific or not. I am having an ongoing dialogue with someone who has initiated that topic elsewhere. Yep. There are some Protestants who say "No, it is an ordinance" and others who say "Yes, baptism is a sacrament and brings the Holy Spirit, making us children of God". The "certainty" of private interpretation...

Paul is very clear. He only becomes muddled when his writings must be reconciled with the semi-contradictory holdings of the Apostolic Church.

Thank you, I'll follow the Church of the Apostles, you continue to invent it as you go.

We must note our difference on how "temple" is used in this passage. The Bible does use it differently. In some cases it refers to a building, in others it refers to the physical body of a single believer. Here, you appear to take it as the spiritual being of a single believer, and I take it to mean the body of believers in a local church. I can see how it's possible to take verse 16 in the singular and I hope you see how it's possible to take it in the plural.

So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community??? Whew! I thought we moved beyond the OT days where God wipes out the next generation for sins of the father or wipes out an entire community based on the sins of the king... How depressing to return to that theological interpretation.

Of course a spiritually dead person does not enter Heaven, but I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. :) On the one hand, you equate "destroy" with death, but OTOH, you must say that "death" is only temporary since one sin may be fixed by absolution from the Church AND that God destroys and then undestroys many times throughout our lives. Christ rose once to conquer death once.

We aren't speaking of physical death here, but spiritual death. The sin of Adam leads to physical death. But the sin of an individual's dissent does not lead to physical death. We will die regardless of our religious affiliation or lack thereof. Thus, Paul is refering to spiritual death, a separation from the Spirit (since the Spirit gives life, I presume you know). Thus, a separation from the Spirit is spoken of in the Bible as death. 1 Cor 3 is a further example of how one can separate themselves from this Life, this Spirit of God. The result is destruction. Death. No cake involved, thank you.

Paul preaches Sola Fide, with assurance.

LOL! You have yet to prove that. You merely repeat it over and over as if it were true. IF Paul is so crystal clear on sola fide, as you claim, where is this recognition among the first Christians? Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to recognize the "clear" writings that Paul preached sola fide? I see Paul clearly saying we are not saved by faith alone - and James agrees.

Is James AND Paul the Word of God? They must agree, correct? How can James agree with YOUR interpretation of Paul? James 2 specifically says we are NOT saved by faith alone. And Catholics don't follow the Word of God??? Oy.

James recognizes that many CLAIM faith without really having it at all. This is like the "Lord, Lord" bunch. Apparently, the "Lord, Lord" bunch gave appearances of faith, but never had it. James is saying that we can certainly spot those who don't do any works as also having no faith. He gives us an easy, and valuable, self test.

...and thus, faith without works is not salvific. Very good. Faith alone does not save. You have said it right there.

So the only way to honor someone is to have devotion to him or her? I've never heard of that before. In that case I would suppose that you do NOT honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, or Paul, or a host of other Bible greats.

What do you base that upon? I hadn't realized that I had discussed my private devotional lifestyle to you. The Bible says all generations shall call Mary blessed. They shall venerate her. I was wondering how you do that. Do you emulate her? Or is your idea of considering her as blessed include using demeaning language about her?

Regards

[HarleyD]

One of the great truths that I have learned of the Holy Spirit is that He DOES work through the scriptures. Why do we want to see any other kind of miracle? We should be speaking the word boldly and trust God that His word will not return void. If we see a person accept Christ, isn't that a glorious rebirthing process by which all the angels in heaven rejoice? It is all done through the Holy Spirit by God's word, right before our eyes. We don't need miracles, healings, or anything else. All we need is the word of God to see His miracles.

I will caveat all of this in that God sometimes intervenes in other ways, but it is always to draw us to His scriptures where He can instill us with His faith through His Spirit.

[Forest Keeper]

What I said was “the “end of times” began as soon as Adam sinned and the only thing keeping us from the “day of the Lord” is His grace and mercy.”

Just off the cuff, do any of you know of any really good end times threads that hash out all of these positions for the unschooled? :)

[HarleyD]

YIKES!!! Now don’t get him started. :O)

[adiaireton8]

A brief summary:

(#14,548): Dr. Eckleburg: "[I]nfant baptizers do not say "I know my child is a member of God's family." We say "I trust God that my child is a member of His family."

(#14,766): A8: When they say, "I trust God that my child is a member of His family", that really means only, "I hope that my child is a member of His family."

(#14,775): Dr. Eckleburg: Thanks for the rewrite, A8, but the word is "trust," not "hope." The distinction is vital, and I'm sorry you missed it.

(#14,778): A8: "Trusting that X" reduces to "hoping that X" when there is no ground for believing X more likely than ~X.

(#14,786): Dr. Eckleburg: LOL. I have plenty of ground for believing X over ~X.

(#14,789): A8: Just two weeks ago, my nephew was born. Now, tell me what ground I have for believing that he is elect and not reprobate?

(#14,800): Dr. Eckleburg: I don't know that you do, A8.

(#14,801): A8: Then it is not the case that you "have plenty of ground for believing X over ~X." Therefore, since as I pointed out in #14,778: "Trusting that X" reduces to "hoping that X" when there is no ground for believing X more likely than ~X", your "trusting that X" reduces to "hoping that X".

In other words, when infant baptizing Calvinists say, "I trust God that my child is a member of His family", that really means only, "I hope that my child is a member of His family", exactly as I originally pointed out in #14,766.

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

And as a stand-alone, it has always meant to me that the body is mortal, but the human spirit is immortal.

That is a good interpretation of C.S. Lewis' "You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

For me, it establishes which is the owner and which is the slave. The body does not order the soul, the soul orders the body.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

It's probably prudent not to refer to this thread as "this" discussion. "This" discussion has covered a lot of ground. LOL.

Gotcha. I should have been clearer, with over 14,000 posts on the thread, by "this discussion", I meant the current one on this page. I try to be careful to get a bit of a handle on what has transpired to try to make sure not to misrepresent anyone. I hate it when I am misrepresented due to a failure to read the context, and this misreading what I've said, so I try to follow the Golden Rule.

But that's part of the fun of it. You can just jump in wherever you feel the water is the warmest. 8~)

Thanks, I'll do just that.[grin]

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In other words, when infant baptizing Calvinists say, "I trust God that my child is a member of His family", that really means only, "I hope that my child is a member of His family"

LOL. Well, those are other words, but they're not my words.

Calvinists, both infant baptizers and adult baptizers, "trust" their children to be among the elect because God has given us this assurance in Scripture...

"But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them." -- Psalm 103:17-18

The promise of the covenant is to believers and their children, and we keep his covenant by the will of God (Philippians 2:13), especially in light of the knowledge that it was God who gave us our children in the first place.

I don't know about RC infant baptizers because I'm not sure how accurately the covenant is kept by men who believe a lie and rashly kneel to the stock of a tree; who falsely believe there are other mediators between men and God but Christ Jesus; who incorrectly presume baptism has some intrinsic magical power to save the infant; and who mistakenly believe they are justified by something in themselves, and not solely by the shed blood of Christ whose righteousness and obedience cover us completely.

"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21

[Quix]

Excellent points.

Thanks thanks.

Blessed to read that we may not be as far apart as was thought on such scores.

[Quix]

We don’t need miracles, healings, or anything else. All we need is the word of God to see His miracles.
= = =

Glad for your caveat . . . however . . . the above

seems to indicate that you think that the nature of, the qualities of, the essences of man have dramatically, significantly, wholesale changed since 2000 years ago.

I find that an enormously flawed, erroneous, silly idea.

[Quix]

PING TO DR E et al:

= = =

We don’t need miracles, healings, or anything else. All we need is the word of God to see His miracles.
= = =

Glad for your caveat . . . however . . . the above

seems to indicate that you think that the nature of, the qualities of, the essences of man have dramatically, significantly, wholesale changed since 2000 years ago.

I find that an enormously flawed, erroneous, silly idea.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think justification is the great divide. We either think we can merit salvation, or we believe Scripture which tells us only Christ can merit it for us.

The more I read on this forum, the easier it is to spot that error which glows as glaringly bright as some of those lovely neon fonts, writ large and bold and damned. 8~)

All glory to God, dear brother in Christ.

[Quix]

Certainly our

justification

is by faith in Christ, His death/blood in our behalf, alone.

[adiaireton8]

Calvinists, both infant baptizers and adult baptizers, "trust" their children to be among the elect because God has given us this assurance in Scripture...

So no Calvinists have reprobate children?

-A8

[Forest Keeper]

[FK on having middlemen in between God and the layman]: "In my mind this is a very distant relationship with God."

Korah and his cohorts felt this way too, saying to Moses: "You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" (Num 16:3) Moses's reply is telling: "Is it not enough for you ...? Are you seeking for the priesthood also?" (Num 16:9-10)

The Bible is clear that God placed Moses in charge of that people. He was obviously a spiritual leader and followed scripture, seeing as how he wrote it down. :) I hope I would have followed God through Moses in those days.

Then, Moses' time was done and authority was passed to Joshua, and so on and so on. It didn't take long for the whole nation to fall into grave sin under thoroughly corrupt leaders. Isn't it interesting that the concept of papal succession UTTERLY failed in the OT according to the Bible. God approves of leaders who are accountable to the body of believers, but He openly spoke against the idea of kings (one man with ultimate authority). It appears that at some point, the Latins thought they could improve on what the Jews had done. Perhaps they believed that man's fundamental nature had changed.