'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/

[Religion Moderator]

Look at the bottom of my post 15221 addressed to you and you'll see the post number as follows (emphasis mine):

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15220 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

The phrase "to continue to lie" is in post 15220.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "How is creation outside of time? No matter what a "day" is, we are given specific time delineations as to what occurred when."

So He created time in order to be able to create?

That doesn't follow. I don't know "why" God created time, but creation of things is a physical act which, in this case, consumed time. God does not tell us that He created all things in an instant, which He could have done. Instead, He tells us that time transpired during His creation.

Did God know the world "before" He created it? If so, then His knowledge is not the same as existence but some idea that has to be created (in time)?

Yes, I think you're really getting to the heart of the matter here. Does God's knowledge of His certain plan in every detail "count" as existence, or did God create a "lockbox-o-souls" first and then dish them out as He created physical bodies in time. I'm not learned in the theology on this, but I would tend away from the latter.

Before the foundations, God had every knowledge of me that there is, everything that makes me different from everyone else. This He knew from the beginning. Given the absoluteness and concreteness of the certainty that I was going to come into being within time, perhaps there is more than one way to characterize this. To me, that certainty is good enough to equate with reality.

FK: "Yes, after 6 "days", His creation work was perfect and complete, i.e. it wasn't so after the third day."

Then God is subject to time.

How so? As I said, God could have created everything in an instant, but He chose to do otherwise. That makes Him the master of time.

[Mad Dawg]

Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans.

He said "Bible-believing Protestant. At a guess I would say around 1540 a lot of Protestants decided that the C of E was not "Bible-believing", and they've pretty much stuck with that opinion, while the C of E has done its best to live up to expectations. So I wouldn't consider Anglicans a refutation of FK's argument, be they never so Protestant.

[kosta50]

This He knew from the beginning

Beginning of what?

If time did not exist, then nothing existed before. It's meaningless to speak of beginning when ti comes to God.

[Mad Dawg]

Does it help to mention that Aristotle says time is the measure of motion (which includes any change)? If you have change, I think you have sequence - one thing (or state) following another. So you have before and after. AND it would seem that to perceive a change is to change.

One of the reasons Whitehead gets read at all is that it's hard to think about an unchanging GHHITS (Great Hoo Hoo in the Sky - or god of the philosophers) who has any kind of relation with things that change but does not change itself. In other words, if you're confused, you're in some very high-falutin' company.

I haven't read Augustine on time - though I must have years ago since he talks about it in the Confession. I sure don't remember what he says.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

As with Peter at the mount of Transifuration . . . the flesh is always eager to build tabernacles and settle down and concretize, fossilize, manage, control, mangle, shape and manipulate events, experiences, symbols, rituals.

God will have none of it.

So very true. That is a Spiritual Truth of this passage:

And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up [any] iron [tool] upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God: And thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there, and rejoice before the LORD thy God. And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly. - Deut 27:5-8

[Alamo-Girl]

As I said in the beginning of this sidebar, John 6 must be Spiritually discerned.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the encouragements!

[Forest Keeper]

I've heard RC Sproul say many times that due to sin, the best that any theologian(which ALL Christians should be) can hope for is to be 80% correct, and even that is a stretch. However, there are the essentials which must be correct for one's eternity depends on it.

That sounds reasonable to me, with your proviso that the 80% includes the essentials of Christianity. Some things really are non-negotiable, despite what we see some churches doing.

[Forest Keeper]

... Paul had been seeking to do God’s will fiercely and intensely all his life. Holy Spirit finally broke through all the blindness with great drama. But it is not as though Paul was NOT seeking God’s will and Holy Spirit FORCED him to accept God’s will.

I'm not sure about that one, Quix. Paul voluntarily accepted the job of hunting down and killing Christians. Without a direct order from God, he knew he was violating the Commandment to not murder. It seems clear to me that before his conversion he was not right with God. Therefore, I see it as much more likely that his conversion WAS "by force", and against his (then) will. It can't be said that he was seeking Christ as he hunted down Christians! :) This "forcing" was a miracle for which Paul thanked God through the rest of his life.

[Ping-Pong]

(in the the Old the New is contained, in the New the Old is explained).

That says it all doesn't it. Very well put. Some seem to disregard the OT, or at least say, "but that is the OT, you must follow the New." It's all one beautifully woven story - you can't have one without the other.

We read in Acts that they met in community, read the Scriptures, prayed together and broke the Bread.....The Gospels were not yet written for two generations.

Of course that is true but before the Gospels, before His Advent they were instructed by God, to meet on His Sabbath's, Feast Days. There the priests read His Word, as I understand it, all day. Even if the Hebrews could not read they would still be taught His plan, His law and about His love.

God wanted us to hear His Word, not man's and I believe that is why Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

I have a great love and hunger for the Sacred Scriptures, but don’t approach it with a theological background or with the intent of exegesis. I just let it nourish my soul day by day.

That exactly sums up how I feel and approach His Word. I do feel nourished by it and see by the tone of your post that His light shines in you.

Thank you.......Ping

[Forest Keeper]

To your interpretation of the scriptures. Therefore, you are still the authority. And in that case, it is just lip service to church authority.

Partially, since we believe that the Spirit leads us in interpretation, but you are certainly right that we do not give the same authority to the Church that you do.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "We say God is directly, and I think the Apostolic Church's position is that God turned over that responsibility to man."

There is that false dichotomy again. Either God is running things or man is. We don't have to choose between occasionalism and deism. We do not have to choose between divine omnipotence and human free choice. We do not have to choose between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. These false dichotomies spawn a host of errors.

I don't believe you think that God turns His back on us, but I have been told that God is a respecter of the free will of men and will not interfere. I have also been told that men have the personal responsibility for themselves to decide whether to be saved or not. Further, I've been told that the men of the Church dispense salvation itself. That sounds like men being in charge to me. Presumably, if the Pope issued an ex Cathedra decree, which he could do using his free will, for the cessation of all administration of sacraments, then all Catholics would be lost! Now, I don't expect that to happen, but I'm just saying ... :)

[jo kus]

Here is where I disagree: Jesus left one commandment. To love, not to read the Scriptures.

One of the major problems with not reading the Bible and getting your Biblical education from "man" is that then you don't know if it is false doctrine or not. Jesus warns us about that. It was His first warning when the disciples asked Him to tell them of what to expect in end times.

When I read the Scriptures, brother, I do not see the idea that the individual is told to take up the Scriptures and interpret them for himself. When I read the Bible, I see authoritative figures (OT and NT) that give the community the "official" interpretation. When the "wolves" or the "Judaizers" come to the Galatians or the Colossians or the Corinthians, does Paul suggest that they take up their Bibles or their tracts that he left them? No, he tells them to look to their authorized leaders or "listen to me".

We see this esp. in the latter books of the Bible, John's Epistles, the Pastorals, Peter, and the Captivity Epistles of Paul. As the Church developed, we see a definite change in how leadership acted. I am sure you will note how the community acted in Acts 1-5 vs. how it acted in the Pastorals. We see a development. I believe it was a natural one that stemmed from the attempt to protect the "doctrines once given". False teachers come in to the community in these later books, and the community is told to reject them, to recall what they were taught and to compare it. This may or may not have included pulling out the letters that John or Paul had previously written.

And finally, how does looking to the Scriptures ALONE provide the assurance that the entire community will agree? Luther said "there are as many doctrines as heads in our community", as he frustratingly realized the Pandora's Box he had opened. The Catholic Church has encouraged reading the Bible in ancient times - we have numerous commentaries from the various saints. However, they are always done in context of what the Church has taught. In other words, the Church is the final authority in judging what is a valid interpretation. Otherwise, how would I know I was right while you were wrong - or vice versus? We wouldn't.

I appreciate the point you were trying to make but I think it is very dangerous to take man's word on God's Word.

You are equating your OPINION with the "official" interpretation. This is, I have noticed, nearly universal among Protestants. Don't you realize that you are a man, and your interpretation of Sacred Writ is just as subject to error as any other individual? What makes you think you are guarded by God, while your neighbor is not? The Spirit guards the Church, the entire community, from error, not the individual. We must change our interpretations, when they differ, to that of the community. This MUST be fact, because there are "Spirit-led" men who claim diametrically opposed points of view on a variety of theological issues in Protestantism. WHO IS RIGHT? IS THE SPIRIT GUIDING BOTH IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS?

God guides the community. IT is the Temple of the Holy Spirit and we are parts of that Body, not the whole alone.

Regards

[jo kus]

He {FK} said "Bible-believing Protestant.

A relative term. Which Protestant thinks he is NOT a "Bible-believing" person? If there is any unity among Protestants, it would be that each person believes that the Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrine. They freely interpret it as they see fit. Thus, even the most liberal of Protestants will fall back on "I am getting my interpretations from the Bible" and refute the more conservative Protestant who disagrees with them - even about homosexuality or women priests. (GACK!) And so disunity multiplies, as doctrines multiply as the number of heads increase in Protestantism...

Ask an Anglican if they believe the Bible. While Calvinists may disagree with their answer, it has no bearing, because we have now entered the realm of interpreting that book - and we fall back on why the Catholic Church is superior.

Regards

[Mad Dawg]

Ask an Anglican if they believe the Bible.

FWIW, if I learned anything as an Episcopal priest it's that if you asked most of what was then "us" and is now "them" if they believed in the Bible they'd start by saying that it depended on what you meant by "believe," and go on to say that Anglicanism was supported on the three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. To this, while I was in seminary people who knew neither that four legs will usually wobble or what "reason" means were trying to add the fourth leg of "experience".

[jo kus]

FWIW, if I learned anything as an Episcopal priest...

Ah, I'd like to hear your story someday!

while I was in seminary people who knew neither that four legs will usually wobble or what "reason" means were trying to add the fourth leg of "experience".

Yes, people of this day and age oftentimes will take what they find as convenient towards their own projects. Nothing wrong with "experience" per sec, but without an objective grounding - the Church - it is highly subjective and we have very little proof to show it is from God or not.

Regards

[Ping-Pong]

When I read the Scriptures, brother, I do not see the idea that the individual is told to take up the Scriptures and interpret them for himself.

Nor do I but I do see where Jesus tells us to "take heed and follow no man". Jo kus I may not have explained myself well. I don't mean that we should not listen to teachers. I was responding to the statement of he defends those Christians who never read the Bible - and he praises them!"

While we obtain knowledge from others we should always check them out in the scriptures.

The Catholic Church has encouraged reading the Bible in ancient times - we have numerous commentaries from the various saints. However, they are always done in context of what the Church has taught.

Other religions also base their beliefs on what their church teaches. Surprisingly - they all think they are correct. No one should be blindly led by any church, or any man, ever. They are all founded by men and men's beliefs of the Bible. God wrote His letter to you and He wants you to read it. It is the only safeguard we have against false teachers or being misled.

..Ping

[Forest Keeper]

Does God "desire all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth"? (1 Tim 2:4) If so, then given your claim that omnipotence is incompatible with "fail[ing] to get what He wants", and given the falsity of universalism, something has to give.

That's right. I see the verse as like an outward call, and it certainly teaches us to treat all people as potentially of the elect in our witnessing. However, I do not think that God literally wants all people to be saved. I think He wants all of His elect to be saved and He does not want the reprobate to be saved. That is why He did not predestine them to become His children.

[Forest Keeper]

To imply that God "wants" means that He is subject to passions created out of needs, as we have passions based on needs.

To imply otherwise means that God makes no choices, and we clearly know that He does.

There is nothing God "wants" from us that He can get.

The Bible tells us that God wants plenty from us, He wants us to love Him, He wants us to obey Him, He wants us to teach our children, and on and on and on. Because He is omnipotent He causes all of these good things to happen and He gets what He wants. We humans want things we can't have. That doesn't apply to God.

Rational? Rational as in "My thoughts are not your thoughts?" Whose reason are you referring to? Ours or His? And it if is His, is it something we can comprehend? Or are we stuffing Infinite God to our finite logical box?

God defines what rational is, so He is the standard. God gave us some ability to use reason when He created us, but of course we fall short of His use so our thoughts are different. If God was not rational, then He would be random and purposeless.

I do credit you for the courage to admit that in your theology God ultimately created Adam so that he would fail.

I wouldn't say that's why He created Adam, but I would say the Fall was part of God's plan, and did not happen by accident.

Did God not create Esau and predestined him to sell his birthright? Did God not create Him knowing that he would do just that? Did Esau have a choice? How can he hate Esau, FK when He made it to be what He made him?

The Bible specifically tells us that God predestined that Esau would sell his birthright, and so obviously God knew. Esau had the same choices that all lost sinners have, but among those is not the choice to do good in God's eyes. God can hate Esau because he was not one of God's children. God only loves His own. He had no duty to create Esau as one of His children. God made a sovereign choice for His own reasons.

According to your theology God created Esau in order to hate him!

No, that was not the reason for creating. The reason God made Esau was to use him in the furtherance of God's plan. It is the same reason God made Pharaoh, Judas, and all the rest. God hating them is a consequence of their purpose, not a purpose itself for creating them.

In your theology Judas is an obedient servant who does the dirty work and then gets cast into hell for his obedience!?!

Judas, and the rest did not do what they did out of obedience to God, so they do not get credit for being obedient. God used them by removing Himself from them to that degree necessary to guarantee that His plan would be accomplished exactly as designed.

In your theology God is not Love; He is only a god who loves some.

LOL! And in your theology God loves the vast majority of people so much that He stands aside and does nothing to protect them while they hurl themselves off a cliff to their doom. Some love. If I treated my own children the same way your God treats His, I would be put in prison. :)