'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

FK: "... there are not many truths, just one. But, people apprehend the truth at different rates and times."

LOL! Yes, eventually people become Catholic at different times!

Yeah, yeah, yeah... :)

[continuing:] My problem with your statement is that some "truths" are diametrically opposed. Opposite. This is not a matter of different rates. We have the "Spirit" leading people in opposite directions, if we would believe every person who said "I am led by the Spirit"...

Yes, you make a very valid point. Lately, I've been toying with a pet theory which I can neither defend nor prove. But, I'll share it with you anyway since it could not be more apropos. :) The thought occurred to me that maybe within the universe of Christianity, God has placed us in our respective faiths on purpose. Perhaps all of the qualities that make you special and different can best be used, in God's view, if your sanctification is through the Roman Catholic faith. Likewise with me as a Reformed Baptist. Since we're both Christians, maybe all this is by God's design in the positive sense, and our differences are outweighed by our specifically intended roles in God's plan.

But I sincerely doubt that Peter or Paul taught that Jesus is a hypostatic union of God and man, ...

I found over 40 references where Paul uses some form of "our Lord Jesus Christ". What else could he have meant?

FK: "Nevertheless, the faiths are fairly compatible on the core elements. As I said above, the Spirit leads as He will."

I question that. In my experience, no matter the topic, I find Protestants of different groups taking different sides of a theological question: Does Baptism save? What is the Eucharist? Can we baptize infants? Do works have anything to do with salvation? What is the relationship between grace and free will? Can a Christian fall away? I do not see Protestants lining up on these questions into two groups, but they cut across the board.

Of course it depends on what one considers "Protestant". If one is in the 50,000 denomination camp, then sure, one will find every kind of belief imaginable. But among Bible-believing Protestants all of your examples are basically agreed upon, except for the Arminian question, and infant baptism (which is minor because all of us agree that baptism is non-salvific). And, on these differences, there really are only two groups.

Ephesians 4:11-13 gives us ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints - and the Bible is not even mentioned. Thus, the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith. If it was, Ephesians could not say that God gave the Church preachers, teachers, and evangelists to perfect the saints. You jump to conclusions when you think that "thoroughly" means "everything".

What do you mean "another"? It's the same thing. If preachers and teachers stick to the scriptures, then sanctification happens. If they don't, then bad things happen. The people are simply a method of conveyance of the scriptures, that's all. The scriptures can be individually read, and they can be taught by others more learned. Both are useful and part of God's plan. ....... "Thoroughly" means "everything we need". If you told me that in Catholicism "thoroughly" really means "partially" then I would not be surprised, I would just add it to the list.

Case in point, FK. HOW did the first Christians get by without a NT the first 25-30 years? Were they not able to become "perfected"? Were they in "limbo" waiting for the Bible that would some day be written to guide them to truth? NO. The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible.

The first Christians got by with oral teachings of what would become the Bible. I assume that the authors taught what they wound up writing. No big deal. Sanctification happened. ...... I thought the Pope just got rid of "limbo". :) ....... Finally, at last you have publicly elevated the Magisterium above the Bible, as I have always thought. That is the only conclusion possible given that the Magisterium is unelected by the laity, and they determine the most important interpretations in the Bible. They are obviously superior to God's word under your system since they define it. (When you use the word "CHURCH" as the pillar and foundation of truth, you can only mean the Magisterium and Pope, since the laity have no practical say in any important matter.)

FK: "If this referred to the lost, then God would be the author of sin."

Isn't that what Calvinists believe, although they won't admit it, their theology says the same thing.

No, that is what some Catholics believe that Calvinists believe. I know of at least one FR learned Catholic who understands better. Our theology is that God is in full control, AND that man is responsible for his own sin. We do not place a duty on God to grace people and prevent them from sinning. That is a big part of the difference.

While defending man being in effective power and control of his own ultimate destiny, instead of God, most who accuse us of believing that God causes sin argue that if we believe God is in control, that He must also be accountable for sin. That simply does not follow. Control does not necessarily mean causation. If God being in control also meant that He had a duty to protect us from sin, then you would be right. But that duty is only imposed upon God by those who disagree with the Calvinist view. It is artificial.

In your paradigm, man is not even judged, although the bible clearly tells us over and over that man WILL be judged. HOW can man be judged if he is not responsible for his own will to act??? I don't expect an answer, as this question has been asked before many times.

Then either you have never asked me, or you have counted my previous answers as not answering your question. I have no control over whether you accept my answer, but I almost always make an honest attempt TO answer. Whether I have answered is not dependent on if you agree with me. :)

I don't know where you're coming from about my beliefs concerning judgment. There are at least two separate judgments. One for salvation and one for reward. Those who are damned are fully responsible for their free will decisions to sin, and they will be judged on that basis. Those who are saved are also judged, but they have the ultimate advocate in Christ. The blood of Christ ultimately proves "persuasive" and the saved are acquitted. There is judgment in all cases, with different results depending on God's will.

Since my understanding of Catholicism is that Christ's blood only allowed man the opportunity to save himself, I can only imagine that you will be arguing your own case at the time of judgment. You will explain to God about all the sacraments you have partaken in, and all of the good works you have done. Good luck with that. :) Seriously though, when does justification attach for you? If it is after physical death, but before judgment, then how is it determined who is justified?

Well I wrote a brilliant reply which I evidently deleted before posting. Your loss - heh heh heh.

I susspecks that annalex wrote that with a little humor going on there.

Near here are two Baptist Churches whose names ought to be, "The "Holier Than Thou Baptist Church" and "The New Greater and Even Holier Than Thou (and sho' 'nuff holier than THEM) Baptist Church". Every December they put down their disagreements and put on a WONDERFUL hymn and carol sing to which everyone is invited. And every December one of the consecrated gentlemen or ladies delivers what he or she apologetically admits is a de rigeur altar call, explaining that that is what Baptists do.

Tradition much? "Tradition of men?" I would hesitate to call it so. To call people to repent and to give their lives to Jesus is surely of divine origin.

"Traditions of men" is, I think, a polemical phrase. WE have traditions. THEY have "traditions of men".

Similarly someone recently and wittily posted:

For Catholics the definition of "idolatry" is simply:
"not what we are doing".

IMHO idolatry is a matter of the heart not of furniture. I am perfectly capable of breaking the relevant commandments with or without a statue or picture in the vicinity. Similarly, whether a tradition is "of men" or "of God" may not be determinable by a dispassionate onlooker.

Someone who does not pray the Rosary can see it as "vain repetitions". And certainly if someone were to pray the Rosary to bamboozle God into thinking he is especially worthy of attention vanity would be one of the things that ought to come to mind.

AND there is certainly nothing indisputably pertaining to the Rosary in Scripture. But from Dominic through Fatima to Medjugorje there have been claims of miracles, visions, and instructions to pray the Rosary. If one believes the stories, the "tradition", the thing handed on, of the Rosary has a pretty good claim to be NOT "of men". If one doesn't, well then it doesn't.

I think we are unwitting slaves of our post-enlightenment Baconian cultural outlook, and in the face of matters impossible or at least extremely difficult to ascertain empirically, we retreat too readily into name-calling. Talk of "Traditions" or "Institutions" being "of men" is credal, not descriptive. It is a manifesto or declaration, not data. But human beings like ritual, formality, dances with set steps. If they don't get this in Church, they'll go watch the changing of the guard in Arlington or become Masons or something. I simply cannot imagine a human group or any kind which will not soon develop its customs, shared notions, and ways of distinguishing the in-group from the newbies and the outsiders. It seems to be part of our nature, so it may be depraved or tainted, but it's unlikely to be entirely and intrinsically bad. It takes, I think, a VERY broad view to determine whether a thing is "of God" or "of men". And so it should be, because in that determination as in everything of importance we must first and last throw ourselves on our faces before the throne and plead for help.

There. That's enough blether for this morning.

BTW thank you and bless you for your kind words. STM (Snickers to the minimum)

The thought occurred to me that maybe within the universe of Christianity, God has placed us in our respective faiths on purpose. Perhaps all of the qualities that make you special and different can best be used, in God's view, if your sanctification is through the Roman Catholic faith. Likewise with me as a Reformed Baptist. Since we're both Christians, maybe all this is by God's design in the positive sense, and our differences are outweighed by our specifically intended roles in God's plan.

It's a good theory. Certainly, God knows what we are going to do and what aids we require to come to Him. Maybe God realizes that us Catholics need all the help we can get, so He sticks us in the fullness of Truth so that us "spiritual infants" can get the milk we need? Who can say?

I found over 40 references where Paul uses some form of "our Lord Jesus Christ". What else could he have meant?

I don't see that statement as encompassing what was later defined at Nicea, although it contains the beginning kernel.

While I don't buy the "50,000 denomination" argument that some Catholics repeat, I do sense a lot of separation of doctrine on some key issues. I think you could categorize all Protestants into 10-20 different major groups, which is still a lot of variety. On ANY difference, there may be two differences with many minor variations, but when you add in all the various questions of Christian doctrine, you are increasing the belief base. Say you have 10 major questions of the faith. You aren't going to have only two groups left that disagree on EACH doctrine. Some agree with "A", while these same folks disagree on "B". Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach a monolithic faith.

What do you mean "another"? It's the same thing.

Since when does the word "alone" in the phrase "Bible Alone" include the teachings of men? Remember, the verses of Eph 4 do not mention the Bible. How do you know that they are using the Bible alone in their teaching? Paul tells us that he uses oral and written teachings. It is safe to say that the other evangelists, pastors, and teachers mentioned in Ephesians 4 also use various methods to teach the faith. This in of itself denies the "alone" idea. While the Bible is a source that we CANNOT disagree with, we don't use it ALONE.

This is VERY clear when you read "Against Heresies" by St. Irenaeus. He complains that the Gnostic Christians were using the very same Bible that the Catholics were. So who was right? Irenaeus claims that we MUST use the Rule of Faith (what became the Creed) and the correct paradigm when we read the Bible. Irenaeus writes some very humorous stuff about the Gnostic ideas of their idea of dieties and sub-dieties. (He changes the names of their "godlets" like Sophia and Logos to Cucumber and Melon! He says one invented name is as good as another!)

Anyway, he is very instructive and his thought touches on our problem: How do we know how to read the Scriptures. How do we know whether the writers meant that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist? From the Bible, one can come up with several answers, but the orthodox, intended answer, according to him, is by following the teachings given, the Rule of Faith.

The first Christians got by with oral teachings of what would become the Bible.

Do you have a verse that states that the Bible swallows up the oral teachings? What do you use to interpret the Bible without these oral teachings, this "way" of reading the Bible? God knew what He was doing by implementing leadership that would guard the "deposit of faith".

Finally, at last you have publicly elevated the Magisterium above the Bible, as I have always thought. That is the only conclusion possible given that the Magisterium is unelected by the laity, and they determine the most important interpretations in the Bible. They are obviously superior to God's word under your system since they define it.

I don't recall even implying that. Sorry if I might have. If the Magesterium was above the Bible, then they could ignore it. They cannot. The Magesterium INTERPRETS the Bible and the Apostolic Tradition for the Church of today. As to "voting", it sounds like you are relying on man's inherent ability to learn what the Bible means WITHOUT taking into account that it is God who wrote the Bible through men. While our latent and natural talents are useful in discerning the Bible's intent, they will not uncover what is called "revelation". By its very definition, revelation is GIVEN. Thus, "voting" doesn't make a difference. God chooses those who will minister - that is Biblical, my friend. We don't choose.

You are confusing our interpreting the Bible a different way from you as "subverting the Bible", as if you have the sole meaning of the texts all figured out. The Church has mulled over the Scripures long before Protestants came on the scene. There was no "ulterior motive" to invent doctrines to piss off the future Protestants...

We do not place a duty on God to grace people and prevent them from sinning.

So how is God in "full control" then? Here, you say God has freedom to allow men to sin. But then elsewhere, you claim that man cannot choose God (even with God's help)because it would offend God's sovereignty. Seems like a contradiction.

I have no control over whether you accept my answer, but I almost always make an honest attempt TO answer. Whether I have answered is not dependent on if you agree with me. :)

Your "answer" does not solve the problem. Who is judged, God or man? You tell us that if man has free will, God's sovereignty is overthrown. Yet, if man cannot choose, how can he be judged or rewarded? You have not provided an answer that solves this question.

I don't know where you're coming from about my beliefs concerning judgment. There are at least two separate judgments. One for salvation and one for reward.

I have yet to see such an idea in Scriptures. Men are judged for heaven and for hell. And if people are of the elect from the beginning of time, why the need for a judgment for salvation? You have already said you are saved and of the elect. Does that mean you will bypass the "judgment for salvation"? If so, you do injustice to the Bible, as it says that all men will be judged, those who do good entering the Kingdom and those who do evil being cast into hell. That's it. Either you will get Life or not. There is nothing in the bible about getting 3 portions of life vs. 2.5 portions of life. Either you will live or you will die.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.