'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/

[kosta50]

Why does having a personality with attributes imply that he is changing?

The Divine Hypostates (Persons, not personalities) are how God revals Himself to us in the Divine Economy of our salvation. Divine Nature, on the other hand, His essence, is immutable and unchanging. Christian theology 101.

Your argument is with God, not with us

Hardly. My argument is with those who deny that Christ is God as much as the Father and the Spirit are the same God. My argument is with those who suggest that the eternal God is changing, mutable, subject to passions, subject to necessity, etc.

...wasn't it you who accused me of Nestorianism ...

When what you said appeared to be denying dual natures of Christ, yes. And it wasn't only I, but many others who had the same impression.

your orthodox brethren might beg to differ with some of your commentary tonight

No doubt, some may, but I would wager that they would recognize their own beliefs in my insistance that God is not subject to passions and mutation. It is rather we, who experience God's love differently depending on our spiritual state. We are the mutable creatures, not God.

[Blogger]

So if People like the JW's use what they think is Sola Scriptura to reach their conclusons, they're not really sola scriptura-ists and it's not the SS's fault.
You obviously haven't studied the JWs very much. First of all, they are not Sola Scriptura. They are Sola Watchtower Society. Their members get books to read which interpret Scripture for them. They do have their own "translation" of the Bible, which was particularly a bad one.

A while back, I wrote a book on non-Christian religions in a short radius around our church. It was mainly a what they believe kinda thing, but also a way of witnessing to them about Christ. This is what I wrote about JWs.

Dr. Julius Mantey, one of the most heralded Greek Scholars in the World said, “I have never read any Testament so badly translated as the New World Translation…it is a distortion of the New Testament.” Likewise, Dr. Anthony Hoekma, stated “…their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself.”

Also, their founder wrote:
If the six volumes of Scripture studies [which he wrote] are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes THE BIBLE IN ARRANGED FORM. That is to say that they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself…Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them after he has read them for ten years-if he lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for years, our exposure shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of scripture! (Watchtower, September 1910, p.29)

So, the JWs are NOT Sola Scripturists, but are Sola Watchtowerists with handlers that keep the less initiated from getting too far into objections to their religion.

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, do have Scripture before them which has not been translated as to distort Scripture to point to their particular view. I can take a Catholic Bible and get the same message out of it that I can a KJV or NASB or the like.

People on this thread have said the Holy Spirit is in the Bible. Thats okay? It wouldn't be pushing people to Bibliolatry? But when we push people to venerate, and some go too far and worship, that's our fault, not theirs?
It is your church's fault in the manner described, the Rosary being a chief aspect of Mariolatry which is pushed upon Catholics at confession by their esteemed leaders. If your view of Mary is not one of worship, but admiration as a blessed woman. Then good. That is the Scriptural view. Unfortunately, Mary is next to God in many Catholic eyes and every outward appearance is that she is worshipped by Roman Catholicism.

We have a closed loop disclaiming responsibility for perversions of our teaching, and that's wrong. Sole Scriptura-ists have a closed loop disclaiming perversions of their teaching and that's right.
Not sure what you are referring to here. If it is the Mary is God movement in the Philippines, the only thing that keeps me from saying - hey, that is heterodox to Catholicism - is a lack of anything official against the movement from Rome. I do not claim that most Catholics believe that the 3rd secret at Fatima was that Mary was the Soul of The Holy Spirit and is God.

How much do we know of the bosom of Abraham - serious question
Good question. If my memory banks are serving me correctly, it was a Jewish understanding of where people went. Unless you were a Saducee, you definately believed that death was not the end and that there would be a Resurrection. I believe that the Jews believed that this was the holding place (i.e., Paradise) for people to go to before they were Resurrected. Maybe someone else has done more research on it. I'm doing that much by memory and I know it isn't a lot of help.

Because you love him. Because you WANT to obey Him (not because you HAVE to). Because it is what we were saved for (Ephesians 2:10). Not in order to attain salvation.
Yeah. That's why we do penance. At least it's why I do penance.
So, there is nothing salvific in Penance? Nothing that helps one attain salvation?

While I admit the Bible doesn't say Mary was sinless, since I do not find the word usually translated "full of grace", the kind of proof which would stand up to an adversarial proceeding, my point was that strictly speaking that even what look like mathematically rigorous generlaizations, e.g.:"There is NONE that is righteous", cannot be taken so. And once that's established, hermeneutics and interpretation get exciting, with WAY more wiggle room than might first appear.
Coupled with her need for a Savior, Mary indeed was not sinless. This does not mean she was a wicked woman. No protestant believes that. We believe she was a faithful, blessed, honorable woman whom God graced to give birth to His Son. We do not believe invoking her name has any sort of power though.

About Co-redemptorix. If no formal doctrine has been declared, my objection stands, and you overstated the situation. We DON'T Teach it. Yeah I kow what JPII said. That's his opinion and I take it seriously.
If it were to become official dogma, pronounced ex cathedra. What would you then say?

The whole church was at the Council in Acts? Every Baptized Christian was there? The whole Church ratified the decision? What are you saying here? (And what do you have against pointy hats? We share polyester, yours in suits, ours in vestments. Can we not agree on that? Of course, you guys do the pouffy hair thing more than we do.)
Probably the church at Jerusalem was present, probably more than that as well. The point is that the laity were present and the congregation was in on the decision. I believe it was the church at Jerusalem that sent the missionaries out. It wasn't just the leadership.

Hey, my Pastor is a snappy dresser. His hair is kinda spiked right now. I think he's going through a mid-life crisis :)

The CLEAR witness of Scripture (I'm pretending here, I don't find most things easy or clear except the Love of God, and that's a unique kind of easy and clear) is that Church leaders made a decision about a contested question of Chruch praxis and teaching concerning the Gentiles. There is no witness that ALL the Baptized came to make the decision. So that point, I think, is not only un-Scriptural but runs contrary to Scripture. I disagree. The whole church was there. The leaders spoke. The church decided, not just the leaders.

Neener neener. There is a doctrine-forming Council in Acts, there have been doctrine-forming councils since.
This doctrine forming council was based upon special revelation to Christ's apostles (which also had some precedence in Scripture- see the Samaritan passages). Again, special revelation is not completely out of order for people past the apostles(Some people know clearly from God that they are to be missionaries, preachers, etc., so God does still speak to us). It just MUST MUST MUST conform to Scripture and certainly not contradict it.

[Blogger]

I look at God as HE reveals HIMSELF in Scripture. Not on how some churchmen have defined him. When one looks at Scripture, one does see God as an angry God. He declares such. I'm not going to argue with Him.

[kosta50]

I don't mean to be sarcastic or malicious here, Kosta, but you have posted so many things I never would have imagined a Christian would believe

That I do believe. Are you suggesting that your idea of what a Christian is must be what a Christian is?

Just recently when asked if God is grieved by our sins, you said "no."

Well if you find that strange, you perhaps need to read more rather than presume that it is wrong.

Why would God in your Calvinist framework of faith grieve for something He created, something He not only knew would happen, but actually choreographed and set in His plan like in stone from before all ages? Is God not the author of this world?

You deny our sin necessitated redress by Christ and you appear skeptical of the "ransom" Christ has paid for us

Of course I do! God is under no obligation to redress our sins! Banish that idea! Christ died willingly for us out of love in order to free us from the shackles of death. In that sense, he paid a ransom.

[kosta50]

Anthropomorphism is a big hurdle, Blogger. Literalism is another.

[Diamond]

"...It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions..."
Anthony the Great...

Luke 15:
...4 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

8 "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[a] and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

... 31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

Cordially,

[kosta50]

Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. - Psalms 50:4-5

So, all the "saints" you meet have made a covenant "by sactifice?"

[kosta50]

I looked in Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith under "The properties of the divine nature."

You got it, dear friend, and there were many before him who clearly understood that God is incomprehensible, unchanging and simple.

[Kolokotronis]

"RC Piety includes an apology for sort of offering personal insult to God in the act of contrition. And I would maintain, as I said earlier, that God is "at least personal" (which requires a re-assmenet of what "personal" means and that both the OT and the Incarnation gice permission, as kind of a hermeneutic, to talk about and to God in a personal way."

I wouldn't say it was "an apology for sort of offering personal insult to God in the act of contrition", I'd say it is exactly an apology for what we perceive as an insult to God. That's the way we think. But the Act of Contrition, a wonderful prayer by the way, is for us, not God. God doesn't "need" our repentence, we do. You are absolutely correct that the Incarnation does indeed give permission to talk about God in a personal way. +Athanasius makes that very point.

"when I tried to articulate the "Satisfactory" doctrine I talked about justice rather than insult -- bearing in mind that for a long time, it seems, all matters of justice were "personal" in the sense that a misdeed offended some individual and/or the king (or "king equivalent")."

Again, this is the way we think. In England, violations of the law were seen as offenses against "the King's Justice". Speaking of offenses "against" God or "God's Justice" are, as the Fathers said, useful for the edification of the simple people. I know that's a hard statement, but its true. Each of us to the extent we are able, needs to go beyond those concepts, to put away childish notions, and move towards a fuller, though certainly not by any means complete, knowledge of God and what He has done for us. Of course there's nothing easy about "understanding" He Who doesn't even exist in any way we comprehend. We can only observe what He has done, His effects as it were.

Sticking with notions of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", maybe useful to "spiritual children" at least for awhile. But thereafter it is pernicious as many come to reject the Dagon god that image gives birth to.

[kosta50]

You can point to a list of core beliefs that you must adhere to, in order to consider yourself Orthodox. That's great. We cannot to such an exacting degree because we don't have the centralized authority that you do

There is nothing centralized about the Eastern Orthodox Church, FK.

Being Orthodox is either 100% or nothing, personal views and errors notwithstanding, FK. You can't say I am Orthodox "a little bit." It's like being married or living; either you are or you are not.

Being a Calvinist is different. You can pick and choose those parts of John Calvin's theology with which you agree in principle and if they dominate your personal convictions you can say that you are a Calvinist (a little bit, a lot, mostly, etc.).

Herein lies the rub, FK. God is not relative and his Church is not a man-made institution that is subject to relativity. One cannot say I believe in God a little bit, or I agree with Him on some things. The Church is not-man made. One cannot agree with the Church a "little bit."

Your thinking is of this world. You are of this world. The Orthodox/Catholics are not.

[Kolokotronis]

D, how would you have Luke, in teaching pagan Greeks, speak about the theosis of a former sinner? Of course he speaks in terms of joy. After the Incarnation, it was and is appropriate to speak of God in anthropomorphic terms. The danger comes when one moves from anthropomorhic terminology to attributing human reactions to God as a matter of fact. The Fathers all used terminology from Greek philosophy to make theological points. A bad result of that was the rise of true Neo-Platonism in some and true Aristotelianism in others, notwithstanding the fact that the original users of Platonic or Aristotelian vocabulary and constructs absolutely rejected those philosophies. The bad result of believing that God is moved by emotion the same way we are is that it transforms God into a being moved by necessity and that, D, is heresy.

[kosta50]

Christ offered Hismelf as a Lamb of God as ransom. He was not sacrificed by anyone.

[kosta50]

I know but I wouldn't say that too loud

Okay, I will say it quietly:

Hebrews 10 is anything but what the Church practices

[kosta50]

God calls all His children/followers saints.

And the Bible says that everyone will be judged.

[kosta50]

Wow if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black..

It's that "spiritual high" kawaii. Thomas Merton aptly describes it.

[kosta50]

Such a God hardly fits the Protestant notion of a bloodthirsty, Dagonesque monster demanding the personal satisifaction of the death on the Cross of His Son because He is offended by our sins

Nothing like the good old Laconic brevity, Kolo. Sure you are not part Spartan?

[Alamo-Girl]

Now, after a good night’s sleep, I’m reading to continue the investigation! LOL!

GOD(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) seems to be not one Spirit at all but three personalitys/entitys..

Three Persons indeed, but there is no “bright line” separating them where one could say this is where the Father ends and the Son begins, etc.

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; - Hebrews 1:3

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. – John 14:7

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26

You continued:

Could be that "GOD" could be even more Spirits we just don't know about them all.. Whatever is; Is.. If theres only three thats cool too..

This is slippery ground because there is only one Father and He has only one begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are very clear on the point.

However, when it comes the Holy Spirit – the Scriptures reveal something of His Person which often (at least in my case) gets a “deer in the headlight look” when it is mentioned, namely this:

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; - Rev 1:4

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. – Rev 3:1

And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. – Rev 4:5

I’ve prayed and meditated over those passages at length – and the leading I have in the Spirit is that He is like a diamond with seven facets. That of course suggests (considering the discussion of the seven churches in Rev 1-3) that members of the body of Christ, collectively, may be seeing the same diamond and the same Light but from different facets. And that of course suggests that we should not be upset because some others see (understand) Truth a bit differently than we do.

A spiritual Universe or a Universe of spirits is inconcieveable to most people I know.. Or a Universe where physical bodys are an after thought and not really needed..

Indeed. As long as a man keeps “hanging on” to this life, he can never die to it and be alive in Christ while even yet in the flesh. He cannot experience much less understand or navigate the reality of the spiritual realm:

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. – Matt 8:22

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. – John 3:5-8

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: - John 11:25

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. – Col 2:20-23

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Col 3:3

You continued:

Mankind anthropomorphizing God seem to tend to do it with the human body as some kind of model.. But then most people I know think they themselves are a human body.. NOT a spirit inhabiting a human body.. Theres quite a difference in that identification.. In that case they anthropomorphize themselves.. LoL..

So very true – it is that “hanging on” to mortal life that I believe makes one only admit reason and sensory perception to his concept of “all that there is.” Like doubting Thomas, they want to put their fingers in Christ’s nail scarred hands and thrust their hand into His side.

But we must remember that doubting Thomas was an apostle, too – and be patient as was Paul here:

But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – 1 Cor 15:35-45

[Diamond]

The Fathers all used terminology from Greek philosophy to make theological points. A bad result of that was the rise of true Neo-Platonism in some and true Aristotelianism in others, notwithstanding the fact that the original users of Platonic or Aristotelian vocabulary and constructs absolutely rejected those philosophies. The bad result of believing that God is moved by emotion the same way we are is that it transforms God into a being moved by necessity...

Thank you for your reply.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "necessity." Are you speaking of it in a particular philosophical sense?

What do you think the following means?

Hebrew 8:3
"Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer."

When Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazurus that wasn't anthropomorphic, too, was is?

Cordially,

[Alamo-Girl]

So, all the "saints" you meet have made a covenant "by sactifice? [sic]"

Yes indeed they have:

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin. - Hebrews 10:11-18

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:14-15

[Diamond]

Christ offered Hismelf as a Lamb of God as ransom. He was not sacrificed by anyone.

See 6,018. In Hebrew 8:3, what was it that was "necessary" to offer?

Cordially,