'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/

[Quix]

TO MAD DAWG:

Thanks for the kind words, my friend. It’s good to see you around these parts again. :)

= = =

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Quix]

I do not think it’s workable to assume that one can apprehend

sufficient understanding of God and issues of choice

logically.

I do not think that logic is useless theologically . . . just that it is weak and insufficient at some point on most major issues.

Certainly faith trumps logic in God’s vocabulary. As does Love.

Trying to squeeze God into a flesh driven human logic box vis a vis

HIS ALMIGHTY GOD OPTIONS OF CHOICE

is a fool’s errand, imho. . . . persistently doomed to fail.

From another perspective . . .

I persistently find the . . . image of God . . . that seems to be construed from the perspective of your post . . .

that image of God is foreign to the God of The Bible, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I know.

That God seems to be much more a mechanistic science fiction sort of construction than of DADDY that Christ died for me to have intimacy with.

[Quix]

No matter how much you think you know, God is not impressed.. Your faith and what you have faith in(or not) is all important.. The less you know the more faith is required.. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is still a mistake.. for good vs. evil, ugly vs. beautiful, debits vs. credits, right vs. wrong, mean vs. nice, heretic vs. orthodox, rich vs. poor, and much more.. are judgment calls from that tree..

We are left with faith for only God can rightly discern these things absolutely..
We must put up with each other through faith..
The flesh is weak but the spirit is buoyant..

= = = =

Excellent points.

[Quix]

Theology is like reading an anatomy text book. Life in Christ is like making love, and like being married in other respects sometimes. (You want me to take out the garbage? Now? I just sat down! Darn it! Oh well, Okay - mumble grumble.). Clearly SOME basic knowledge of anatomy is essential to making love — but really, not all that much. And if the relationship is good, chances are that one will learn all the anatomy one really needs to know.

But to confuse studying an anatomy text with making love or to think that one really was quite the lover on account of the amount of time on had spent with Gray’s Anatomy would be silly, pathetic, and, uh, unrewarding.

= = = =

Great wisdom from His Spirit yet again. You trying to be an Olympian gold medalist in such matters?

Since “Overachiever” is probably askew from the mark, I’ll just cheer you on . . . however enviously.

[Quix]

Sorry . . . a correction . . . minor, or not . . .

I'd like to suggest that while this is hard to accept at first, any guy who has tried to understand a woman has found himself tied up in similar [GORDIAN] knots.

[Quix]

Protestants generally believe that their own interpretations are not subject to error. Thus, when the Catholic Church disagrees with their interpretation, naturally, Rome is wrong and they are correct. Even if this was held for 2000 years, Rome is still wrong...
= = =

WRONG.

Merely that we are AT LEAST

NO LESS RIGHT than the RC’s.

And, likely, as we earnestly work out our own Salvation in dialogue with God with fear and trembling AS SCRIPTURE INSTRUCTS EACH INDIVIDUAL TO DO ONE ON ONE WITH GOD. . . may well be lots more right lots more of the time.

[Quix]

2000 years of holy men are wrong...

. . . . So, the Scripture . . .

There is none righteous, no, not one . . .

is an error voiced by Christ Himself?

Perhaps you should inform Him. He could send out a retraction by angelic courier.

All that to say . . . I’m not very impressed by “holy men” who have any sort of titles . . . especially man given titles and positions of political power

in ANY denomination.

[Quix]

I wish that were the case. If you can convince Rome to renounce the anathemas of the Council of Trent, renounce it’s position on Justification, renounce it’s dogmas of Penance, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, purgatory and renounce it’s position on petrine primacy, then there will be a basis for discussion based on truth.
= = =

Goodness. Miracles never cease. I AGREE that it would be wonderful, if such were renounced by Rome.

[Quix]

Thanks for your encouragements dear Sister in Christ.

I feel I was a mere flawed scribe on:

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.

= = = =

. . . Maybe because I lived on the other side of it for so long and The Lord Hammered that truth into me through many fiery furnaces.

[Quix]

I can’t buy . . . especially without any qualification . . .

that Paul knew what he was doing was wrong. Don’t buy it at all.

Paul took pride in keeping the whole of the law as few others managed to do as well at.

It was his ZEAL FOR GOD AND GOD’S LAW that compelled him to trash, thrash and destroy Christians.

[Mad Dawg]

any guy who has tried to understand a woman has found himself tied up in similar [GORDIAN] knots.

Oh yes. Similar and, if anything, of a greater magnitude. The argument is simple:

1. Both experience and common sense suffice to show: both women and God are intrinsically mysterious.
2. Both are POTENTIALLY rational, for:
   1. Women are human; and
   2. Man is the rational animal, as the Philosopher says; and
   3. God is the source of Reason.
3. Now, to say something is rational is to speak of potentiality. This can be easily demonstrated for
   1. children are human and
   2. are not rational YET
4. But in God, all that is potential is Actual, as the Philosopher and Angelic Doctor attest.
5. Therefore God is actually rational.
6. But women are only potentially rational.
7. A fortiori If we cannot understand God, who is ACTUALLY rational, how much less can we understand women, who are only potentially rational (and, as far as I can tell, doing their best to keep it that way). Therefore women are more mysterious than God.

Q.E.D.

(I was BORN to be a Thomist!)

And thank you all for your kind words. I will report you to the moderator for making personal remarks, just as soon as I get over being glad you made them.

[Mad Dawg]

This is actually a great question IMHO and one I've thought about for years. I dare say we all know people who have built up what, upon reflection, is almost a pathological disgust at theism and especially at Christianity. And then one day they "flip", and are saved.

The Paul of my imagining was a super scrupulous Pharisee, applying the beautiful Torah to everything, and just horrified at these blaspheming Xtians because he loved God -- the God of Moses, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- so much. And one day he is travelling on the dusty road to Damascus, and his mind takes an unexpected turn, and then, as we say theologically, he is knocked off his ass, uh, donkey, as he is suddenly infused with knowledge about how this scummy, criminal, Galilean Yeshua is the fulfillment of the Torah he loves so much.

Yeah, that was the moment, if you like, of his saving. But God had been setting him up all along. That's my take on it. Before he was conceived, God had a plan for him.

[Forest Keeper]

You can read all this into the story. You can also, with Ping-Pong a few posts down, read incest into it. I simply go by the text: Noah is described by doing the natural thing without any sinful intent. He worked, then he drank wine, and feeling tired went to his tent to sleep, and his clothes shifted.

Your reading of the text appears to have the specific agenda of showing that scripture leads us to believe Noah sinless, for the purpose of discrediting the Protestant reading of Romans 3. :) Your assessment of Noah's situation is most kind. How do you know what his intent was when he started drinking? Scripture doesn't give us his intent. Since Noah was responsible for negligence, for him to be innocent here one must believe that poor Noah was a most naive man, unaware of the effects of alcohol. I already showed scripture disproving that. Scripture does not show Noah to be a stupid man, which he would have had to have been to be innocent here. We are given no scripture showing Noah to be stupid. Therefore, you are not "go[ing] by the text".

And, I'll match your disclaimer with one of my own. I am not sure at all that the Bible details at least one sin for all of God's servants. That does NOTHING to discredit Romans 3. David was a righteous man, and while so he sinned. Romans 3 tells us a complete truth and is not contradicted anywhere, unless one changes the meaning of words. The Bible no where says that so-and-so was sinless. That is only specifically said about Christ, no one else. It is the Protestant reading here that "go[es] by the text".

FK: "That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not."

The qualifier is "such great faith". It points to the faith specific to the Centurion, that is faith without familiarity with the person of Jesus.

That is illogical. What tells you the comparison line is drawn based on whether one has familiarity with Jesus? Obviously scripture does not. By your reasoning it would be equally correct to argue that Jesus meant "of all the wart-faced, 250-pound brutes I've met, your faith is the best". There is simply NO REASON to draw the distinction you are making, from the scriptures. Jesus could have worded what He said in any one of a thousand ways to say what you are looking for. He didn't. He just said "in all Israel". This is not "go[ing] by the text". This is building into the text what isn't there in order to defend extra-scriptural Roman Catholic beliefs.

FK: "Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace [as Mary accepted]?"

It is of course the same grace; one of the reasons to pray to Mary is to learn from her how to accept divine grace given us.

If it is the same grace that is available to any of us, and if Mary is the only one to have ever accepted it, then I find it interesting that Mary used absolutely ZERO Roman Catholic extra-scriptural Tradition to make her choice. :) She didn't need it. Her knowledge was based on Sola Scriptura, in the sense that she knew nothing else, and that was apparently sufficient for her to accept more grace than any other human who has ever lived (outside Christ).

Plus, given that a reason to pray to Mary is to learn how to accept the grace she did, what does this say about Mary's intercession if more than a billion have been praying to her for 2,000 years and yet she still stands alone in the grace she accepted?

[Forest Keeper]

The style of icons is in itself a matter of canon. It is not simply an artistic preference similar to artistic styles in creative art. For example, iconographers are taught to avoid excessive realism. ...

Yes, this is exactly what I was wondering about. Thank you.

[jo kus]

I wrote : Rather than saying we should check them against the Bible, it would be more correct to "check them against the Traditions given, both oral AND written", as Paul wrote the Thessalonians.

You responded :Jo kus, I can't agree with you here. The traditions of man can be very dangerous and change over time. God's Word does not.

Brother, I understand your disagreement, but you are confusing the nature of the word "tradition" as used in the Bible. Tradition means teaching. It is used BOTH in positive AND negative senses. In Thessalonians, it is used in the positive sense. This Tradition IS FROM GOD! Paul says so in Galatians chapter one. He says these teachings are NOT from man. Thus, his traditions, both orally and in written form, are from God. NO ONE tells us in the Bible that only written traditions are from God, while oral traditions are from men! Paul makes no such distinction.

On the other hand, there are teaching of men, the negative sense of "tradition" And example of this is Jesus' attack of the practice of Korban, which is an attempt to release one's responsibility to provide for one's parents, a breaking of God's commandment.

Thus, a Tradition is considered "of men" when it attempts to circumvent the Word of God. That is not what Apostolic Tradition, as Paul discusses it, does. It is from God, it does not circumvent God's commands!

There are many that will come in His name, disguised as men of God. We are to know them by their fruits but if we don't know the Word how will we know they are false teachers?

We can know God's Word by HEARING it, not necessarily READING it. Isn't that what Romans says?

Regards

[jo kus]

I wrote : Protestants generally believe that their own interpretations are not subject to error. Thus, when the Catholic Church disagrees with their interpretation, naturally, Rome is wrong and they are correct. Even if this was held for 2000 years, Rome is still wrong...

WRONG

Merely that we are AT LEAST NO LESS RIGHT than the RC’s.

That is untrue in practice. Logically, it would be correct if all things were equal. However, you included, over and over accuse the Catholic Church of her "distortions" and so forth. You claim they are wrong on such and such interpretations. IF you held to the above as you claim, the most you coul say is "we disagree". But that is not what you say. You say "we are right and you are wrong".

So which is it? Are you infallible individually, or is it a case of "agreeing to disagree"? Think about how you write and ask how do you REALLY think about this.

Regards

[jo kus]

2000 years of holy men are wrong... .

Are you saying that 2000 years worth of holy men are wrong and YOU are right? What about your last post? Which are you? Infallible or just in disagreement with the caveat that YOU might be wrong?

There is none righteous, no, not one . . .is an error voiced by Christ Himself?

Christ didn't voice "no, not one" is righteous. Paul wrote that while quoting the Psalms attacking self-righteous and wicked Jews. And being righteous has nothing to do with error in doctrine. Being righteous is being just in God's eyes.

Perhaps you should inform Him. He could send out a retraction by angelic courier.

I believe Jesus is God. I don't need to inform Him of anything. Perhaps you should put out a retraction on your last post...

All that to say . . . I’m not very impressed by “holy men” who have any sort of titles . . . especially man given titles and positions of political power.

Well, I am impressed by them (even such holy Protestant men as Wesley). Anyone who follows God's will as the saints who have gone before has earned my respect and appreciation of what they have written about God, as I am not anywhere near as close to God as they were/are.

However, if you are infallible, I can understand better why they wouldn't impress you. We are all just peons compared to you and your all-knowing knowledge.

Regards

[jo kus]

I wish that were the case. If you can convince Rome to renounce the anathemas of the Council of Trent, renounce it’s position on Justification, renounce it’s dogmas of Penance, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, purgatory and renounce it’s position on petrine primacy, then there will be a basis for discussion based on truth.

= = = Goodness. Miracles never cease. I AGREE that it would be wonderful, if such were renounced by Rome.

You are merely proving my theory, that Protestants believe they are infallible. You don't just disagree with Rome, you KNOW you are right and they are wrong.

Amazing that God would bless so many people who cannot agree with each other with the gift of individual infallibility!

Perhaps the more proper term would be "logically impossible". Think about it.

[Quix]

LOL.

[Quix]

Good points.

Thx.