'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."

Thank you for all the literature. One thing that surprised me about McMahon was that he really seems to have no use for Baptists at all. :) I saw a few comments like this:

Reformed theology holds as a central aspect of its theological system the Covenant ideas surrounding the inclusion of infants and family in the covenant of grace. If Waldron is redefining this to suit Baptistic ideas, then he has removed himself from the realm of classic Reformed Theology, though he may believe in the sovereignty of God.

He seems to make this a central issue of being a Reformer, and I have not heard that before. Warfield, OTOH, I thought was more charitable, and I really liked the way he framed the issue:

The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how the external Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of the children of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive as possible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only those whom it is forced to recognize as such, then we shall inevitably narrow the circle of the subjects of baptism to the lowest limits. If, on the other hand, we say that its attitude should be as inclusive as possible, and that it should receive as the children of Christ all whom, in the judgment of charity, it may fairly recognize as such, then we shall naturally widen the circle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The former represents, broadly speaking, the Puritan idea of the Church, the latter the general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism.

I think this is perfectly fair, and was generally how I was approaching the issue. When is it proper, etc.? He goes on to say that the decision to baptize is made on a presumption, and I nod my head in agreement. Then, he argues that a profession of faith is insufficient to be a qualifier because people can be insincere, lie, or whatever. My problem with that is that the Bible gives us plenty of examples where it IS sufficient as a qualifier.

Then he says "Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise." I thought that sounded reasonable and that maybe this comes down to the interpretation of that promise. It appears that Warfield was referring to Acts 2:38-39. I must admit that I was amused as he ripped Strong for only half-quoting, when he himself only gave it a 3/4 quote, leaving out something I think is important. :) Here it is:

Acts 2:38-39 : 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call."

My issue with this is that we KNOW that being a lineal child of a Jew was no guarantee of salvation at all. Only believers are children of God. It seems to me that the last clause is a summary of what he was saying, that the promise is only for those whom God will call, not necessarily for my particular child. I suppose I see "your children" in the generic, and not in the specific. I read it as "children in faith" rather than all biological children. The promise is clearly not for children who turn out to be reprobate.

Later, I was pleased to see that Warfield recognized my point:

And we can believe that the Church includes the minor children of its members for whom they must as parents act, without believing that it is thereby made a hereditary body.

However, he doesn't really explain this much other than to say that since parents are responsible for their children, therefore, they can be representatives and if the parents are saved, then the children are saved. To me, that is a monster leap which I didn't comprehend him explaining, other than the relation to Acts 2.

On the flip side, I did wind up agreeing with many of Warfield's criticisms of Strong. I think Strong claimed too much, for example his claim that since infant baptism is not clearly set forth in the Bible means it couldn't have happened. I don't think that's right.

Overall, I think Warfield was very even-handed in his approach, and I learned a great deal. Now I think I have a reasonable understanding of what the ideas are. Thanks again for showing it to me. :)

Warfield seems to follow your quote from Calvin, but the very last part of the Calvin quote confused me:

Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.

That don't look right. :) ............. But then, after thinking for a minute I remembered Warfield and this may be a perfect example of the presumption that he was talking about. If so, at the very least I think I have a much better idea of how to read the views of (Reformed) paedobaptists. It appears to all go back to the promise. If that's true, then this is exactly what I wanted to know. :)

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.