'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/

[Forest Keeper]

... but I do know that neither Reformed Baptist baptism and Presbyterian infant baptism incorporates the corruption of the idolatry of "baptismal regeneration" ....

Yes, I think our differences on this are relatively minor. Someday in Heaven we'll both find out for sure what God intended and one of us will go "OOPS" and laugh about it with the other. :) Thank you so much for posting the Westminster Confession on this and for showing me what the majority Reformed view is.

[annalex]

I don't understand why you say it is "extrascriptural" when I gave you the scripture

It is extrascriptural because the passage in Leviticus does not match the passage in Genesis 9 (uncovering vs. getting uncovered), and the passage in Genesis 9 contains enough references to physical actions (fatigue, drunkenness, sleep, covering while walking bakcwards, etc.) that militate against an euphemistically sexual reading and suggest literal slipping of a blanket or something like that.

[Forest Keeper]

"...according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." Isn't that a great sentence?

Yes, it truly is. Amen. :)

[stfassisi]

RR, I see you also mentioned Saint John Chrysostom. and tried to tie him to solo Scripture

Here is what else Blessed Saint John Chrysostom had to say...

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further.” Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..

And you also mentioned Blessed Saint Irenaeus.

Here is what he also had to say....

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

And you also mentioned Blessed Gregory of Nyssa

Here is what he also had to say...

“[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

And just for good measure,here is a few more from Blessed Saint Anthanasius

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense.” Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).

Would you like to see what ALL the Early Church Fathers had to say about Eucharist(Transubstantiation) and Scripture Interpretation outside of the Church?

[hosepipe]

[.. rather than in the entirety of the Word as revealed to the Church ..]

Except that "the Church" is NOT wholly the Roman Catholic church.. for the Roman Catholic Church is merely "A church".. a denomination of the church.. a club.. a mere view of the revelation.. As the book of revelation indicates.. Which is the Revelation of Jesus Christ NOT the revelation of John..

[annalex]

Christ said “I shall build my Church”, singular. St. Paul asked, rhetorically, “Is Christ divided?”. There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as defined by the baptism and the Creed. Christ revealed nothing to the “denominations”.

[Ping-Pong]

and the passage in Genesis 9 contains enough references to physical actions (fatigue, drunkenness, sleep, covering while walking bakcwards, etc.) that militate against an euphemistically sexual reading and suggest literal slipping of a blanket or something like that.

Okay. If you want to believe Noah cursed a grandson, to be a servant of servants to his brethren because that boy's father saw him naked - okay. It isn't worth an argument.

....Ping

[Risky-Riskerdo]

RR, I see you also mentioned Saint John Chrysostom. and tried to tie him to solo Scripture

Here is what else Blessed Saint John Chrysostom had to say...

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.

And it is clear from Chrysostom's other comments, just one I've cited that he did NOT consider anything that was claimed to be "tradition" to be genuine, but that the "tradition" had to be in conformity with the Scriptures.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Very one of those citations was not meant that ANYTHING claimed to be "tradition" was to be accepted, for the heretics they opposed also claimed their heresies to be "tradition", but they meant that the "tradition" must be in conformity with the Scriptures which were the true standard.

Just as Gregory of Nyssa points out:

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

Now that can be denied, but Gregory was addressing heretics who claimed their heresies were from "tradition", so Gregory points to that which is the true standard, Scripture.

Tradition is NOT anything Rome wants it to be, as Gregory stresses, it MUST be in harmony with the Scriptures.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

I find it most interesting that Rome has redefined what “tradition” is several times since the 19th century.

[HarleyD]

What an excellent and beautiful testimony A-G. I must admit I'm extremely busy at the moment and am skimming over some of these posts. I'm extremely grateful for you calling my attention to this one because I do think it speaks volumes about the way God works with us. The miracles that take place truly take place as God transforms us into new creatures.

And, yes, I have experienced several personal miracles in my own life. Even though we walk by faith and not by sight, they are like cool water to a weary traveler.

[annalex]

I don’t disagree that perhaps something was left unsaid there, just that it is not in the text.

Let us not forget that Adam and Eve are under greater punishment for eating an apple.

[stfassisi]

Trying to use the early Church Father,s to fight against the Catholic Church is just plain silly,Dear Brother/Sister.

You would be better off to stick with Luther and Calvin and cater the protestant masses.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa along with a slew of others would brand you a heretic for interpreting scripture outside the church,so I would be careful where you are going with all this....

“Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, ‘product of creation, ‘ applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384).

Remember, I can hit you with a 10 or 20 to 1 ratio of Church Father,s on most issues you think you can try and interpret them.

In other words ... You,re wasting your time.

Good Night!
I wish you a Blessed Evening

[hosepipe]

[.. Christ said “I shall build my Church”, singular ..]

True.. no denomination is the whole church.. the RCC is indeed a denomination.. The Eastern Orthodox are also a denomination.. as are the so-called "reformed".. The Lords table is an excuse for all manner of heretics to get together and put up with each other, pure genius really, absolute pure genius..

Even the christian cults are members of "the Church".. John ch 10 indicates Jesus said "my sheep hear MY voice".. not the voice of the hireling..

For Jesus is the gate of the sheep pen, its not Jesus fault certain sheep are afraid to come out of the sheep pen.. What sheep pen?.. Oh! there are many.. That think sheep in a different sheep pen(other than their pen) are heretics.. I left the sheep pen long ago.. but I have nothing against those in the "pens".. Actually thats where they NEED to be..

ONLY scripture can be trusted.. with the Holy Spirits help.. for thats WHY Jesus left the Holy Spirit in charge.. not the hireling.. Not scripture only but scripture plus the Holy Spirit.. The Holy Spirit is watching all of us.. sheep pen or not.. Sin against the Holy Spirit is sin indeed.. be careful..

[annalex]

The perimeter of the Church is her sacraments. One must be baptised, do penance, and receive the Holy Eucharist to be saved. Those in non-sacramental communities of faith knowingly refuse the most important function of the Church; it is illogical for them to claim to belong to her.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Saint Gregory of Nyssa along with a slew of others would brand you a heretic for interpreting scripture outside the church,so I would be careful where you are going with all this....

Not hardly, and Gregory said so, very clearly.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

The perimeter of the Church is her sacraments. One must be baptised, do penance, and receive the Holy Eucharist to be saved.

Which is a gospel of works.

[stfassisi]

So you think Saint Gregory is in you,re camp? He is NOT!
Truth is... you only use what you can twist in his writings to support you,re claims for solo scripture and your belief system.

Most everything else Blessed Saint Gregory of Nysaa says on other issues you disagree with him. like.....

Peter Built the Church in Rome

“Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world’s advantages to attract men to him?” Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).

and Reliance on Oral Tradition...

“...I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion?” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

and on Transubstaniation...

“Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).

“Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He trans-elements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).

and on Mary as Intercessor

“For it is said that he [Gregory the Wonderworker] heard the one who had appeared in womanly form exhorting John the Evangelist to explain to the young man the mystery of the true faith. John, in his turn, declared that he was completely willing to please the Mother of the Lord even in this matter and this was the one thing closest to his heart. And so the discussion coming to a close, and after they had made it quite clear and precise for him, the two disappeared from his sight.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Gregory the WonderWorker (A.D. 380).

I could go on and on,so Please stop using our Blessed Saint Gregory of Nysaa to support a protestant belief system!
You,re church fathers are Calvin and Luther!

He is Catholic! NOT Protestant!

Good Night again!

[hosepipe]

[.. The perimeter of the Church is her sacraments. One must be baptised, do penance, and receive the Holy Eucharist to be saved. ..]

If so, then Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are in essence hijacked out of "the Church".. They are made to be ancillary to clergy and ceremony.. BUT imported by transubstantiation which is magic and superstition.. in the mysterious way all mystery religions operate..

The Holy Spirit is a real and vital entity.. More real than the Sun and the Moon since he made the Sun and the Moon.. The Holy Spirit does not need clergy or ceremony to operate.. or dogma.. clergy does.. and pagans do.. After all is God, God?.. You know, the real one.. there are many Gods but only one real one.. The pretenders(pagans) Need ceremony and clergy.. and outward displays.. The paraclete(Holy Spirit) can come by your(or my) side wherever we are to "help", comfort and instruct..

NOTE: Transubstantiation = making a metaphor literal(eat my flesh and drink my blood).. its like saying "its raining cats and dogs and then running to the window to see pets falling as precipitation..

[jo kus]

I wrote : WHY WOULDN'T [the saints] be interested in those of us whom they loved before they went to heaven?

You responded: Because by that time they will ALL know for sure that God is perfectly able and willing to handle EVERYTHING Himself. That's His job. :)

We already know that, FK. But that is not the point. For example, why do we pray? Hasn't God already decided what He will do? And can't He handle everything Himself? Again, it is your paradigm that excludes love and how it works that prevents you from seeing the worth of prayer and intercession. We see God "awaiting" our prayers, just as a loving father awaits for his child to ask HIM for favors. That is our paradigm.

Those whom God wants to be saved, He saves. Those whom He doesn't want are lost.

"God desires all men to be saved". How is that different from "God wants all men to be saved"? You are ignoring the Scripture's intent. Shame, shame...

Either that's true OR God is a colossal failure as an omnipotent Being.

So when YOU, a member of the so-called Elect, SIN, does THAT make God a failure? Does God desire men to sin? WHY does He let you sin IF He is omnipotent in every aspect, all controlling and so forth... Or does God ALLOW men to choose to sin or not to sin (the later only possible because of His grace, which does not overpower)

look to every place in the Bible where Jesus begins a sentence 'The Kingdom of Heaven is like ...' That's what Heaven is like". :)

That belays a misunderstanding of what the "Kingdom of Heaven" means. It begins NOW, brother. Consult the Scriptures and see that eternal life begins when Jesus Christ comes to abide in us. John is ESPECIALLY clear that eternal life is accessible to us in this life.

Regards