'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."

When I first became a Calvinist, people would tell me God was completely in control down to the last atom. I found this difficult to grasp until you start thinking about how everything MUST be in His control otherwise He would not be all knowing or all powerful. If you lose this concept (and many have or are) then you slip into Open Theism.

Amen, Harley. And I've never met anyone who, once made aware of this perspective, goes back to believing they over-stated God's control of His creation.

Every day it's more and more clear that He's God and He's in control.

And that is wonderful news for all of us.

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." -- 1 Corinthians 15:10

"When you believe in God, you've got to believe in the all-powerful God. He's not just God, He's the all-powerful God and He has total control over everyone's life...nothing else speaks to my heart. This doesn't speak to my intellect, it doesn't speak to my logic -- it speaks right to my heart and right to my soul, deeper than anything I've ever thought of. And I totally believe it. That being said, I'm not a very good Christian. I mean, none of us are ever 'good' Christians. That's not the point. When you're a Christian, it doesn't mean you're gonna be good, it means you've got a harder road to pull." -- Alice Cooper

[.. Is God subject to "situations?" Is He 'caught" up in the storm or is He the maker of a storm? ..]

When dealing with creatures with choice?.. Yeah!...
Creatures with no choice are automatons with a Robotic God..

[.. Is he wondering if He should go right or left? ..]

Sometimes.. Creating stuff is very creative..

[.. That's right. God is not subject to passions; Christ did not suffer and die in His divine nature. ..]

Not passions like men but passions on a higher more absolute level.. Animals have passion but on a lower level than men..

[.. God does not hope because He is in control and He knows the outcome. He doesn't hope that you will be saved or won't be saved; He knows. Faith is hope. God has no reason to have faith. ..]

God has faith.. hope.. and love which is sacrifice..
God is the greatest example of service which is ultimately sacrifice..
ALL proper service takes faith..

[.. God wills what He wills – and what He wills happens. He doesn't choose based on hope or possibilities. God is impartial, so as far as His dealings with people are concerned, He is absolutely neutral as nothing we can do is something He needs, nor can God be bought with bribes and flattery. ..]

Evidently.. Your God is a machine, a Robotic God..

[.. He is not your friend. He is your God. ..]

NO.. he is NOT YOUR friend.. He is my friend..

Doesn't it make sense that the Christians of the 100 AD time frame were merely following what they had been taught by Paul and the rest of the Apostles?

Yes, it "would" make sense, but we know that isn't what happened. Weren't most of Paul's letters to the churches meant to correct mistakes in what he had very recently taught them? Isn't it true that different churches got it "right" to very differing degrees? And this is after personal teaching by Paul himself. If all that is true, then it would be no stretch to think that some churches practiced the Eucharist as you do and some didn't. For some reason Paul chose not to write about it at all, as currently practiced. That's a big red flag for me. I somehow doubt that all the churches had the Eucharist right, but they were otherwise all messed up on a myriad of other issues, including the identity of Christ Himself. Paul devoted a lot of ink to that issue.

Where is the outcry from all of those "real" Christians who said "hey, those Catholics got it all wrong".

I suppose we can't know for sure the extent of any such outcry. However, if there was one, it doesn't surprise me at all that it wasn't preserved. As I understand it, it is fairly disputed when the current administration of the Eucharist, with the theology behind it as it is performed today, even came into existence. I just know that it is extremely odd that it is not in the Bible if something this central to your faith is true.

Where are the "reformed" Christians???

I figure they must have been around, since Augustine must have learned from somewhere. :)

First of all, Jesus is in eternity, the eternal NOW. Thus, His human act is united with His divine self and brought into the eternal NOW. Thus, we of the 21st century can have access to this one-time sacrifice, offering ourselves united with Christ to the Father.

I don't understand where the "Thus" comes from. Without scriptural support you are mixing God's timelessness with man's real time, and if I remember my Back to Future movies correctly, this sort of thing really should destroy the universe. :)

But seriously, which of Christ's human acts WERE NOT united with His divine self? I know you are not going to tell me that the cross was the only time when His two natures were united. Therefore, I don't see how it is logical that you single out this one event in this respect. By what I perceive as your reasoning, I would think that the real presence should appear at baptism, all prayer, and every other human act we share with Him in commission for that matter. Yet, we only have "access" at the Eucharist. And you can't tell me that there is something magic about sacrifice and timelessness. Jesus sacrificed throughout His life, yet only one sacrifice appears to matter WITH REGARD TO time, in terms of "crossing over". How is that? IOW, by the conditions you set, the Eucharist is not at all unique for the singular and exclusive phenomenon you suggest.

Most of your Scripture quotes come from Paul. I see you don't have much to say about James or John or Peter or the Gospels. Why is that?

Maybe it's because Paul wrote most of the NT? :) And, you of all people should know better than to say I shy away from any Biblical writer because in all of our conversations, I have quoted MANY TIMES from James, John, and Peter, and any other writer who is relevant to the topic. I think you are being unfair. How many topics have we discussed? Hundreds. I've quoted from EVERYWHERE and I've done it more than once!

I can understand the stereotype of why you wouldn't think I would want to quote from James, but why in the world would you think I have anything against John? He is my favorite Gospel writer. One of the only things I do in my life "liberally" is quote from John. :) YOU HAVE SEEN IT!

PLUS, folks on my side quote from a variety of OT authors 5 times more than the Catholics do! :) ALL scripture is equally inspired and inerrant.

FK: "[The intimacy shared between God and man] is diminished [in Catholicism] because one must go THROUGH a man."

I always thought that that was PRECISELY HOW GOD REVEALED HIMSELF! Through the Word made flesh. God took on flesh, thus uniting Himself TO man...

You are doing all my work for me. :) Of course my context was going through a clergyman in Catholicism to get to God. Yes, Christ came in the flesh, and what did He do? Did He hole-up as a monk, sending third-party emissaries to do His preaching for Him? Did He put a firm buffer between Himself and the common man, such that He was inaccessible directly? Did He turn away honest seekers and tell them to plead their problems with their deceased fathers? Of course He did none of those things. Christ STRESSED a personal one-on-one relationship with people. There are tons of stories. It's what He did. THAT is the Biblical model that has been changed in the Roman Catholic faith. God still wants that one-on-one relationship, but some faiths find it threatening and discourage it.

Jo kus, in reading this post I don't believe we have an argument at all. I agree with what you are saying. Perhaps your earlier post threw me with the statement of he defends those Christians who never read the Bible - and he praises them!"

We can certainly learn whether we hear or read, however we will KNOW if the words are truly of God when we study ourselves.

James 1:26. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

This is just one of the warnings about following man only and being taken in by his "vain" ideas. So, when you say, "We can know God's Word by HEARING it, not necessarily READING it. Isn't that what Romans says?", I will agree but at the same time think it very important that we read it for ourselves.

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10.For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.

Not many teach in that manner today. It is easy to make scripture fit your doctrine if a verse is cherry picked but difficult to do if you "rightly divide the word"

11Timothy 2:15 Study to shew theyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16.But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17.And their word will eat as doth a canker.....

How does one know those "vain babblings" or if they have "rightly divided" unless they read themselves?

....Ping

(a) Thanks for the homework assignment. I will spend the next while thinking of verses and passages that could be seen to support the idea.
(b) That's why we call the Incarnation a mystery fer cryin' out loud! That something bigger than the universe should be able to sneak into it as a zygote? That the ultimate source of all causation should, without pretending (as if He were a mere actor or liar), appear to allow Himself to be subject to the laws of physics - the basic ones like if you run a spike through a wrist, bones will break and blood will poor ... Yes, that when He took His first tottering steps the earth did not shatter under His feet, that when He suckled at His Holy Mother's breast He did not suck all the universe into himself, that when He spoke trees did not bend and break, walls did not crumble and fall, and all the earth's air did not blow off into space --

Yep. Mystery. Most amazing thing.

This is why, when in our recitation of the Creed we come to

Του δι΄ ημασ και δια την ημετεραν σωτηριαν, κατελθοντα εκ του Ουρανων καισαρκωθεντα εκ Πνεθματοσ Αγιου και Μαριασ της Παρθηενου, και ενανθρωπησαντα;
From the Liturgy of John Chrysostom
who for men and for our salvation came down from Heaven and became flesh from the Holy Spirit and Mary, and was made man.
From the Liturgy of John Chrysostom

in the old days we genuflected, and now we bow at the waist.
(of course, if it was me, and especially if I didn't remember that He did it for us precisely so that we could one day stand in His presence and gaze on His face, I would have recommended falling to the ground, and covering one's head with one's arms -- but that's just me.)

This is VERY big stuff. The Universe should have been destroyed. But God is really smart and really sneaky -- with us wicked, He is wily!

Yay! I needed and still need that wiliness every second!

Sorry, got carried away.

Total depravity does NOT mean that we are all born axe-murderers

Experimental psychology and even common sense tell us that we can all be driven to violence.

It just means that because of the Fall, we are all born into sin

We are? How so? Is the body by itself sinful? Or is our soul sinful? And if so, is it not God who gives us the soul? At which point does it become sinful? It could not be in the act of procreation in marriage because marriage is an institution of God; procreation in marriage is not a sinful act.

No one is born into sin or with sin. Sin is something we must commit to be accountable, just as you believe that you must accept Christ in order to be "saved" (which makes it incumbent upon your act of "acceptance," talk about man-mediated salvation).

An alcohol or drug-addicted infant is not guilty for its addiction, but is born with a devastating consequence of its mother's sin of alcohol or drug abuse. In anything, that infant is a victim of sin, as we all are born victims of sin.

Also, that we cannot choose God on our own.

Certainly we can, once God knocks on our hearts. How can you choose something or miss something until you know it exists?!? But once you know, you can choose.

FK: "I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?"

Oh boy. It has been the ordinary, constant teaching of the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, whether you would define that as "dogmatic", I don't know. Something doesn't need to be officially defined at a Council to be considered a belief of the "entire Church, everywhere and in all times". However, it is not part of our faith [dogmatic items], part of the Creed.

OK good, this is what I'm trying to get at. From the Luther thread, I have a specific memory (which could be faulty :) of there being three specific main "layers" of Church holdings (perhaps this only applies to Latins): dogma, doctrine, and discipline. I was under the impression that each was distinct and very defined in terms of authority. I had the idea that these were measures of accountability for you, i.e. you have to agree with this because it's dogma, but you are allowed to disagree with this because it's discipline, etc. But now we have an idea that something can be a "belief of the 'entire Church, everywhere and in all times'", YET, "it is not part of our faith".

SO, :) the next time I meet a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox at a cocktail party, and I start debating theology with them, to what standard should I hold them to for faithfully representing the faith?

I'll even play along. You could legitimately ask me how I can call myself a Calvinist when I don't follow infant baptism, as Calvin did follow it, and the majority of Reformers do. I would say that I am fine with the description of Calvinist, but that I am more properly called a Reformed Baptist. In any case, there is no governing body who has the power to decide who may call himself what as to Calvinism. Therefore, to find out what the terms mean, it would be a good idea to --- ALWAYS CONSULT FIRST WITH THE BIBLE :) --- consult with several who call themselves these terms (which you already have) and then read the literature by the Protestant Fathers, and others (which you have already been showed). That is just the way that God has set us up. Although we hate to see kooks fly off in other directions, overall, it has worked well for us Bible believing Protestants.

THEREFORE, :) after all that, I would want anyone to hold me accountable; as a Southern Baptist, as a Reformer, as a Reformed Baptist, or as a Calvinist to scripture FIRST and ONLY. That doesn't mean I won't find myself in a pickle or two, but THAT'S the only standard for me. :) The standard for interpretation is as the Holy Spirit leads me, which has included some of what could be called Reformed tradition.

The matters of our faith, dogmatic items, include:

From what you listed I probably agree with you 90%. That's not too bad. :)

Vatican 2 continued the teaching that Sacred Writ is from God and is inerrant. However, it is not PART of our faith, if you understand what I am saying by what I listed as those things that have been revealed by God to us.

I probably muddied the waters.

PERHAPS! :) I can understand how you're supposed to follow it, but how can God's admittedly inerrant word NOT be "part of your faith"? I didn't even see Tradition on the list. Maybe it's just one of those things again. :)

The community (Church) is a voluntary organization. As such, its rules should be followed voluntarily to maintain membership. The authority of this organization has the right to cast our voluntary members who refuse to follow the rules.

I would generally agree, but in this case being "kicked out of the club" means being damned for all eternity, as I understand it. This is why I was curious as to the level of accountability.

This is the idea in mind when the Church warns pro-abortionist politicians that they tread on dangerous ground. They can no longer call themselves "Catholic" and flout something diametrically opposed to our beliefs.

And let there be no mistake, I fully support and agree with the policy. :) While my opinion doesn't matter, I would think that if some of the pols WERE actually kicked out, the Church might lose some dead wood, but there would also be a heightened level of credibility for the hierarchy among the laity.

To those who disagree with these Catholic teachings [e.g. sanctity of life], the question remains "why are you still Catholic"?

Simple question, simple answer. VOTES! (as I'm sure you know). I sincerely doubt that if the Kerry's and the Kennedy's of the world were in any other line of work that they would ever darken the door of a church. Same with the Clintons.

Why don't you Calvinists simply say that God is the cause of evil and be done with it, because that's what you are saying, that's why you believe (by all accounts, even you FK).

But, then, evil cannot be evil, can it? if it's from God it's not evi.

Dr. E, as far as God not tempting, it's in the Bible; it says so on numerous occasions. Perhaps you search engine can find it. Then, again, a Calvinist model may not have that feature. Or maybe it's in those parts of the New Testament the Refromed never read.

God didn't tempt Adam. He planted the tree and told Adam not to eat of it. So, just because my neighbor has a hot new car doesn't mean I can just take it. It's not my neighbor's fault that his car is tempting me. I am the one who allows myself to be tempted.

The same with Adam and Eve. They could have said no (oh, goodness, free will! impossible!). God did not force them to say yes (what a weakling!). Of course that is not possible in the bizzarro control-freak Reformed theoogy, where evil is not evil because it is from God, as if evil were a creation of God and not absence of God!

but that I am more properly called a Reformed Baptist.

as distinct from "Recovering Baptist" which is something else all together, right? ;-)

I'd bet there are two ways to get the RC Church to carefully and dogmatically define the role of Scripture. (1)Get a bunch of people to say it has NO role whatsover; or (2) have a groundswell of people asking for a particular definition and then have a few miracles associated with the groundswell.

From out here in left field, let me throw this into the soup: Being a Catholic to me is not the most important thing - IF by that you mean identifying particular points of doctrine and nailing down in detail how I (or we) differ from this group or that group on this or that point of theology.

Yeah, I had to do SOME of that in the process of deciding to convert, but most of the points of consideration were about ecclesiology, I suppose, not exactly what to say and what to avoid saying about merit, faith, grace, and so forth. If it weren't for FR and the conversations, and especially what seem to me to be mendacious characterizations and attacks on what we believe and what our beliefs imply, I wouldn't think about it at all, or not very much.

I want to "see God more clearly, follow Him more nearly, love Him more dearly." I don't think even about "being saved", as such.

Some seem to think (And I guess some Catholics encourage this kind of thing) that we are frightenedly dependent on our clergy to mediate God's graces to us. I KIND of get that, but here on the ground, it's not like that. That I can go to mass daily is a blessing, but I don't fearfully tally up my sins to see if I'm worthy (Quick answer: no, I'm not) or struggle to get my priest to say "jump" so that I can ask him "How high?"

Maybe because I'm an ares (there, THAT ought to set the cat among the pigeons ...) I guess I tend to think in military terms. I get a kind of combination of medical care, R&R, resupply, moral support, and campaign plans in the various cultic activities I carry on with at Church, and more of the same in my private daily prayers and readings. Then I go out into the world and ~~make an ass of myself, as usual~~ strive against the world, the flesh, and Old Nick and try to do the odd spot of good one way or another.

Maybe I ought to set aside the apologetic endeavor altogether, but I do so enjoy a friendly, shared enquiry into these matters. But I don't intend to master the entire scope of dogma, doctrine, teaching, opinion, nagging, and friendly advice, and then see how yesterday's deeds or tomorrow's plans stack up against that huge edifice. I talk to God -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to Mary, to Anthony, Augustine, Catherine Laboure (who mostly says, "God loves you, shut up and get to work," (which, I think is different from what she says to a lot of people), Michael (a little), Gabriel (a little more) and the poor angel who has me as special assignment, and try to make it to bedtime without messing up.

And by and large, I feel privileged and blessed far beyond my non-existent merit.

I'm trying to give an explanation of the inchoate account that some of us give of the various levels, combinations, and permutations of doctrine. It's just not central to some of us. Jesus is central. Seeing Him is the hope -- "and we shall never hope in vain." (te deum)

One more effort. If you are gazing into your beloved's eyes, and he or she is gazing back, and somebody comes along and asks, "Are you confident that this love will endure forever or, rather, are you living in fear that if you mess up you may lose this love?" what's your answer? Mine is,"Excuse me, we're gazing into each other's eyes now."

That's sort of kind of maybe my personal excuse for not being able to give a systematic account of all the ins and outs.
Be gentle.

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.