'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/

[D-fendr]

If you mean this in reply somehow to my questions to Blogger, I've read it. And I still don't come up with a cruel and capricious God.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Why did you choose the ones you chose and not the others? On what basis or criteria?

There is no criteria man can satisfy because all men are fallen and none can merit salvation. God elects based on His good pleasure alone.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" -- Ephesians 1:4-11

You should read the Bible more often. Then you wouldn't have to be without this knowledge.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And I still don't come up with a cruel and capricious God.

Good. Nor do I.

[Blogger]

Why do you feel you have the authority to question what I do with my food in my house? Did I not make it available to all? Wouldn't I have been perfectly justified in allowing everyone of the guests to go their own way and continue in their choice to shun my free gift? Don't I have sovereignty over my own home and my own goods? I invited them. I offered and tried to persuade them to eat. I kept the door open. Yet, in spite of my benevolence, the guests not only refused to eat but frankly insulted my goodness. I had provided everything they needed. You now want to make me OBLIGATED to use my magic mind changer on EVERYONE. I've kept nobody from my table; yet, in order to meet your criteria for not being cruel and capricious (which frankly has issues itself when applied to theology) you would force me to change the minds of everyone - in spite of the ingratitude they have towards me and in spite of the fact that I've given them nothing but good.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If you mean this in reply somehow to my questions to Blogger, I've read it.

Then if you've read those verses from Romans, please offer your understanding of them.

[D-fendr]

With your view and proof-texting, you could make God into anything you wish, the biggest, cruelest Thor ever. Is this what you believe Him to be?

If you wish to discuss, let's try again.

[annalex]

I do not dispute that there is nothing one can do to earn the salvation determined from the foundation of the world through the superabundant merits of Christ alone, as it is grace that moves us to good works:

34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.

(Matthew 25)

I would, however, dispute that works of love have nothing to do with it. This is where Christ answers the direct question on what one must do for salvation:

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? 21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.

(Matthew 19)

From this we learn that faith needs to be formed by obedience to Divine moral law, works of charity, and a life of total discipleship.

This is where St. James directly addresses the question of the role of works of love:

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

(James 2)

I am, of course, aware of the passages in Romans and Galatians where St. Paul explains that works done for reward, or works of ceremonial law, do not count for salvation. My advice to the Protestants that are quick to quote them in defense of the error of "sola fide" is to read these letters to the end, where they will find exhortations to works of charity, according to St. Paul, the greatest theological virtue.

I would also dispute that one cannot possibly lose his faith and therefore his salvation; here for example, St. Paul describes just such an occurence:

war in them a good warfare, 19 Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. 20 Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

(1 Timothy 1)

[annalex]

Thank you for your prayers. I do likewise.

[D-fendr]

Did I not make it available to all?

No. That's the point.

I invited them. I offered and tried to persuade them to eat.

You didn't do the one thing you are telling me is the only thing that can possibly make them eat.

Isn't this clear? I know it's an analogy, but it's an analogy for your theology. No one can eat unless you change their mind. The food is irrelevant. Only your mind-changing works and some you choose not to give them that - the ONLY thing that you know will keep them from starving.

You see this now, yes?

[D-fendr]

We can try another one.

People in a room on fire in a burning building. We'll forget for a moment that you created the people and the fire, and make you just a fireman.

They're running willy-nilly, total confusion, some even further into the fire. You have a special machine that can instantly transport them all harmlessly from the fire.

You have the power to save all the people in the room. Only you can choose whom to pull from the fire and you can easily choose them all.

You don't. Just a few. The rest you just watch as they burn alive.

Now, what would you say about the kindness and compassion of the fireman?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? 21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. -- (Matthew 19)

But you left out the most important part of that story...the conclusion of which Christ knew full well...

"But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." -- Matthew 19:22

The young man was sorrowful because he knew he would never do all that was required of him. Just as none of us can "do" what is required for our salvation. It is Christ's obedience that saves us; Christ's righteousness that redeems us; Christ standing in our place and taking on the punishment due us that permits us to stand acquitted before God.

Jesus goes on to explain...

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:23-26

[Blogger]

Nor do I.

D-fendr, your objection to this doctrine, I suspect, stems from the same reasons that others reject it. 1)Emotionally, you want everyone to come to Christ and 2)You somehow think it is unfair for God to have chosen some and not others. Nor do I.

For the former, we all agree. Emotionally, we want nobody to go Hell. When Saddam Hussein was executed, there wasn't joy in my heart, nor should their be in anyone's. A lost soul went to Hell. Yet, Saddam went there because He rejected the light all around Him. While there is a certain gladness that he will not hurt anyone any more, there is no joy that he died and went to Hell. Yet men do. They go to Hell not because God didn't choose them but because they have rejected every open door and opportunity to follow God that God has offered. They are without excuse (Romans 1) Nor do I.

The second one that I hear a lot is that election is unfair. To that I say, I agree!!!! It is horribly unfair. But I would also submit, that you really don't want fair. Fair would be Hell for all of us for all of us sinned. Fair is NOT Jesus taking our sins on the cross and paying for them with His own blood. We don't want fair. We want grace. Nor do I.

Grace is completely unmerited and at God's pleasure. We can not obligate God to do anything. He does as He wishes. He isnt' obligated to give anyone salvation and would be quite within His standards of Justice and Holiness to deny everyone. He does so as He wishes, not based upon any merit we have but just because He as God wants to do it. He is God. He has that right. Nor do I.

As the text that Dr. Eckleburg quoted states: Nor do I.

Romans 9 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Nor do I.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nor do I.

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Nor do I.

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Nor do I.

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Nor do I.

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Nor do I.

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Nor do I.

25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

God has the power to do anything He wants. Yet, he chose Israel and left the Gentile nations to their own for 4000 years. Was this unfair or was it within His rights as God? He now has made salvation available to all. He has the power. Is it wrong for Him to not save everyone since He can change minds and hearts? He created them. Is He now unjust because He doesn't use the power He has and cause everyone to believe? What if He has different purposes? What if He wants the objects of His mercy to understand what grace is all about? What sin is all about. What holiness demands? Are you going to stand and say He is unjust for doing as He wishes?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Sorry, I should have pinged Blogger since it was a post to Blogger.

I think I was just overly-excited to see annalex posting Scripture. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

D-fender, what are you defending?

[D-fendr]

You're missing my point.

It's with your whole picture, not just with not everyone being saved.

It's about the lack of meaning, the capriciousness of it, the denial of free will and choice. The whole predestination thing.

It's the total structure, not the end result of non-universalism.

Here's your theology as I see it. Please tell me if I have a piece of the structure wrong.

1) Everyone born today is doomed to eternal damnation (Man may have had a choice in the past according to you, but not now, that's what every human is born into - deserving damnation.)

2) Some will be 'elect' and given grace to want to come to God. Those so blessed will always come. Those not blessed will always not come.

3) There are no choices or decisions you can make involved in the matter, nothing you can do or say or choose can make any difference. Your fate was determined long before you were born. If you're not elect, it's your fault, if you're elect, it's not your fault.

4) God could save all, there's nothing different about those he chooses and those damned for ever, no consideration of their heart or soul; you should just be grateful not everyone is left to eternal hell.

[D-fendr]

Dunno, what are you Eckleburging?

;)

[Blogger]

Not the same.

First, your analogy looks at sin as mere confusion - not the evil act of will that it is.

Second, God is not a fireman. A fireman is obligated to fight fires. You can not obligate God to do anything. He is God. He will be consistent with His justice and holiness and will show mercy as He wills and will give grace as He wills, but He is not obligated to give His creatures any more than He has already given them. In fact, He isn't obligated to do anything for them. He is the potter. They are the clay. If He wishes to destroy all in the fire, He can do so. The fact that He doesn't is pure mercy.

But even at that, even if a fireman were a good analogy of GOd, you havent' given the correct view of the fireman. You see, the fireman not only cleared a path for escape accessible to all, but put His very life on the line and offered to stand in the fire for them if they would just leave. All they had to do was enter the path that He prepared. Yet, they refused. In fact, they hated the fireman. They loved the fire. They would rather burn than turn towards the fireman. They spit upon the very gift He gave them and ignore His path instead deciding to pursue their own path.

True, the Fireman has the power to save everyone in the room yet the more He reaches towards the people the further they run.

He is just in allowing all to burn. But in order for others to see the consequences (Which they never could without His allowing some of the consequences to play out); He chooses to save some of them while allowing the others to follow their desired course.

[HarleyD]

By the way, as a favor, would explain to the various Calvinists and assorted other Protestants here, in terms they understand (because its evident I can't) what the basic differences are between Orthodox and reformed theology and why an Orthodox would say that Orthodoxy needs to be experienced not explained.

I'm flattered that you think I so highly qualified as to explain Orthodoxy to Protestants. However, I find it difficult to explain Protestantism to Protestants. Everyone's running around shouting "Praise the Lord" and waving their hands hoping to be "slain in the Spirit", you know. If I say it all boils down to synergism and monergism they look at their monitors like deers staring at headlights, drooling all over their keyboards. Someday, someone is going to get electrocuted and I'll be blamed.

Here is an excellent article on problems with Orthodoxy in America that I came across by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. I think it is rather fitting here because it discusses the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church and its problems in America. I especially like this phrase:

We are constantly told that something is "canonical," because it is "recognized" as canonical by such or such Patriarch or Synod. But, once more, in the Orthodox teaching canonical is that which complies with the canons and the canons express the truth of the church. We must openly reject the "romanizing" theory that something is true because some infallible authority has decreed that it is true. In the Orthodox Church truth itself is the supreme authority and criterion. Problems of Orthodoxy in America

Doesn't sound very Catholic to me. In fact it explains how the Orthodox have a more loosely defined hierarchy than the Catholics. One that I happen to believe is more biblically based.

[D-fendr]

I can't for the life of me see the difference. They are born that way. Can be no other - unless you pick them. It doesn't matter that they love the fire - they can be no different in your view. They absolutely never had a chance from birth on.

Can't you see this point?

You say they have no choice, now they have a choice? Which is it? Can they choose to not love the fire without your intervention?

Isn't your whole structure based on no choice?

[D-fendr]

Or as you put it earlier: How can they be free when they are bound by sin?