'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/

[Mad Dawg]

Not only is there the 2Th 2:15 quote, but as was quoted in Greek earlier in this thread, there is Rom 10:14-15 which suggests to me that apostolicity is a whole big part of the hearing and preaching thing. I won't say it's conclusive one way or the other, but if we're going to talk about the
overall context and message and such, as well as about not torturing particular texts, it seems to me those verses and a mention of being, as the NEB has it, "commissioned" needs to be mentioned.

[Blogger]

My point was not to try to discuss the whole of Catholic theology. My point was to show the devotion to Mary as opposed to the devotion to Jesus. Period.

[Kolokotronis]

"Among the signs of divine election, a friendship of the Blessed Virgin is the surest. Think about it."

Yup!

[Mad Dawg]

I am just too tired to track it down now. Okay. You were saying that maybe we made too much of Mary's "Fiat" and said,"God doesn't ask permission". Then I did the "ravished" thing, and we got all sidetracked.

I think the problem is that, sure from one aspect, God does NOT ask permission. and He doesn't get caught by surprise either. But from another aspect He does seem at least to engage in a dance where HE does this and then WE (by His grace) do THAT and so there is something very like asking permission.

The whole darn thing seems to paranoid to me. It's like nobody gets any "credit" for doing anything good, but if they do something bad then there's plenty of blame. There's even plenty of blame if somebody misunderstands something they did which was good in itself. If somebody comes to Jesus, no merit or any semblance of merit accrues to the people who nurtured and guided and sometimes just about carried him there. But if somebody takes "Mother of God" God the wrong way, it's our fault?

it seems, if anything, the fault would be in the person taking things the wrong way. I've been a monotheist for, well, quite a while. It never occurred to me that saying "Mother of God" meant that Mary was the REAL god, and that Trinity stuff was just a parvenu. From the time I was 19 with no instruction I knoew that the "middle term" was "Jesus, who is God".

I started praying the Rosary off and on, in 1967. I think, IN A WAY, I can say that Mary saved my life. I know perfectly well that Jesus is Kyrios and that God is God and the rest of it. There has never been any question in my mind OR any emotional displacement of God by Mary. But still there is this ineffable relationship.

The boss-lady and I sort of blend our Rosary with our daily and occasional intercessions, and there is no "hiccup" in going from "We pray to the Lord" "Lord hear our prayer" after one of us gives a whole telephone book full of the people we're praying for.

So despite what you see in stores and what cook's aunt's neighbor's daughter might have done about mariolatry, on the ground, here among people who practice right smart Marian devotion, it's just not happening as feared. There are now 20 mysteries of the Rosary. Mary gets 8 of them, in the sense that she is explicitly mentioned (or, at least, broadly hinted at) in 7 of them and in one, the Wedding Feast at Cana, she is, as it were, clearly implied. Jesus is explicitly stated in all but 4, and of those 4 2 are the Annunciation and the Visitation and 2 are the Assumption and the Coronation, which if I may say so, imply the heck out of Jesus.

It's just a non-starter. The only people I KNOW of who have a beef with the term are people who came into the conversation not only with a beef against the Catholic Church but with a firm resolve NOT to believe that Church's account of itself without a (sometimes nasty) fight. It was never easy to think this possible misunderstanding was our problem or our fault and it's getting harder and harder.

You know there are some people on this thread who, if they got a notarized letter from God saying, "Surprise, the papists are right!" would take a VERY long time and much heartache to come around.

This is like what Rush says about Democrats advising Republicans how to be better Republicans. A lot of us have taken the objection seriously and looked at it from all sides. At this point after 7500 posts on this thread alone, it's going to take more than a sampling of one store -- a sampling which evidently didn't count crucifixes as images of Jesus (or note that nearly every rosary has an image of Our Lord which is usually larger than the image of our Lady) to get me to think that there is a plague of mother worship sweeping the land.

Growf!

[blue-duncan]

"What do we need to know or do that is NOT in Scripture?"

And let me add, if there is anything, remember
Gen. 2:18, "And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." they will be sure to tell us.

[xzins]

LOL!

[annalex]

What do we need to know or do that is NOT in Scripture?

Off the top of my head, should infants be baptized? Should Sunday be day of worship? Should children receive Communion? Is adultery grounds for annulment? Are sins remitted at confession or upon completion of penance? What does it mean "pray without ceasing"? On all these different cases can be made from the scripture alone.

The praxis of the Church has been nearly entirely left to the Apostolic Tradition.

[annalex]

It is communication through the words used.

Mother of God is clearer. Mother of Christ invites the question, well, she is mother of God then, no? Or is Christ not God?

There is no substitution for literacy.

[annalex]

"orb"

Thank you. I wonder what did they do when the globularity of the Earth was not common knowledge.

[annalex]

I am sure it is important to Spockians.

[annalex]

You still compare apples and oranges. We don't eat Mary on Sunday.

[Blogger]

I think the problem is that, sure from one aspect, God does NOT ask permission.
In all respects Mad Dawg. You don't see it. So far, Revelation 3 is the only scripture that has been brought up to imply that He does, and it doesn't contain a question at all.

and He doesn't get caught by surprise either. But from another aspect He does seem at least to engage in a dance where HE does this and then WE (by His grace) do THAT and so there is something very like asking permission.
Up until the last moment, I was with you. There is a tension. God is sovereign. Nothing happens without his knowledge and allowance (whether it is permissive or directive will is another theological issue that sometimes is best not to dwell on). So, he is never taken by surprise (which actually cool, since it also means we can never disappoint God since He knew what we were going to do anyway- another issue). Now, the dance you speak of is really a well orchestrated plan. I do not believe that a person can ultimately thwart God's plan. How much lee-way we have is really not articulated. We know that as far as God's plan for humanity, there really isn't a plan b. It's not like God watches to see what we will do. Hence, He doesn't ask permission. He gives directions. God is not toodling along and saying "OH NO!!!! Mad Dawg just screwed up my plan for humanity" He knows ever move we will ever make and it all works out towards His plan and glory, and if we are Christians, our good (even to the point that the best good for us is to be taken home). So, all that is to say, that there is this observational tension that we really can not understand as humans. But, there is nothing in us that God must rely upon in order to accomplish His plan. Rather, if we weren't His tools for accomplishing His will, the Rocks themselves would cry out.

Now, the idea of "Credit" for doing good. A couple of things. First, I'm going to turn your statement around to read, If they do something bad then there's plenty to blame, but its like nobody gets any "credit" for doing good [either]. For the first part, there is no "IF" there. We all do bad. We all deserve Hell. Period. Now the second, nobody gets any "credit". You're absolutely right there. Salvifically, any "righteousness" which we do is as filthy rags before God. They are nowhere near His holiness and are as filthy, stinky, dirty rags in comparison. Filthy rags deserve nothing but being burned in the fire. Nevertheless, as Christians God has set up a system of rewards (as well as stripping of reward) for those who do good works. The good works in no way save us. But, they are all a part of what God expects of us and designed us to be as His chosen vessels. As Ephesians 2:8-10 says " 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." In other words, our salvation rests in His grace by faith alone- exclusive of works. But, His salvation will absolutely produce good works because it was all a part of the reason that He saved us to begin with. He gives us the ability to do those good works, and graciously gives us rewards for those things we did with a motivation to please Him. I've said it before, I know we can not do anything to thwart God's plan for the ages at all. He will keep us from doing that. But as Christians, we are creatures whom He has given TRUE free will (unlike the will of the lost who willfully enslave themselves in the chains of sin and love it). We obey or we disobey. The lost only ultimately disobey. Their motivation is NEVER towards pleasing the one true God. Ours often is. Sometimes it isn't. Christian works with bad motives will be burnt up and we will have no reward to speak of. We will be in heaven, but saved "as by fire." Now, as the to the "Mother of God" comment, let me ask you this. Let's say you have been chosen to escort a prisoner on death row to the execution chamber. He is in his shackles and you are to walk beside him, get on an elevator, and then walk him to the chamber door to never see him again. This man is a notorious sinner, who was never exposed in any depth to Christianity and really doesn't even know who Jesus is. As you are travelling on the elevator alone with him, he looks down and sees a miraculous medal lapel pin on your jacket. All of this time, you have been burdened to try to share the gospel with him. Suddenly he turns to you and says "Who is the lady?" and nods towards your lapel. You have about 10 seconds before the elevator doors open. Honestly, will your answer be, "a)She is Mary, the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and I love her" or b)"She is the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ who was God and came down as God to save those who were lost. Would you like His forgiveness?" Which would be your choice Mad Dawg?

It never occurred to me that saying "Mother of God" meant that Mary was the REAL god, and that Trinity stuff was just a parvenu. From the time I was 19 with no instruction I knoew that the "middle term" was "Jesus, who is God".
I don't think that anyone would say that the title means she is God. Rather, I think the confusion comes in with her preceding God. She didn't. The imprecise term "Mother of God" implies that she did.

The boss-lady and I sort of blend our Rosary with our daily and occasional intercessions, and there is no "hiccup" in going from "We pray to the Lord" "Lord hear our prayer" after one of us gives a whole telephone book full of the people we're praying for.
Do you not ever wonder if what you are doing with the Rosary is spoken of in Scripture when Jesus said "Matthew 6:7- But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

"The Lord's Prayer" was not a prayer for us to repeat over and over and over and over again as a formula. It was a model of how we were supposed to pray. Remembering in our prayers to praise God (Hallowed be thy name), yield to His will (thy kingdom come, thy will be done), Make petition (give us this day), Ask forgiveness (And forgive us our trespasses) while releasing others from any debt owed to oneself (as we forgive those who have trespassed against us), ask for protection against Satan's ways (lead us not into temptation but deliver us from [the]evil[one]), and again into praise. It was the ideal prayer. It was a model. It wasn't a rote formula. The rosary is a formula. Say this and you will get protection from Mary against temptation. Say this and you will earn grace. This is not biblical, rather it was the instruction of an apparition of Mary which has grown to a normal ritual in Catholicism.

It's just a non-starter. The only people I KNOW of who have a beef with the term are people who came into the conversation not only with a beef against the Catholic Church but with a firm resolve NOT to believe that Church's account of itself without a (sometimes nasty) fight. It was never easy to think this possible misunderstanding was our problem or our fault and it's getting harder and harder.
The people who have a beef against the Catholic church have a beef against it because we believe its teachings are not biblical and its gospel is a different one than the one found in Scripture. I believe that there are Catholics who are saved in spite of the church's teachings. I believe there are Baptists who are lost in spite of my church's teaching. It isn't at a personal level that this judgment is made. Rather, it is at a top level of "is what is being said in harmony with Scripture?" If not, the "fervor" you see may not be nastiness but frustration because someone thinks you have missed it on the gospel. It is a show of love. Of course, this isn't always the case. Some folks just like to argue without really having any purpose in mind. As a matter of fact, many of us can basically be looking at these discussions with love but occasionally lapse into just being argumentative for arguments sake. Anyway, objection to the Catholic church isn't just a case of hatefulness and obstinancy.

You know there are some people on this thread who, if they got a notarized letter from God saying, "Surprise, the papists are right!" would take a VERY long time and much heartache to come around.
I would submit they would reject the letter because they would have tested the spirit with Scripture. God isn't a cheerleader for the papists. He is a cheerleader for his truth. Where the papists get it right, He is pleased. Where they don't, He is not. Ditto with the Protestants. God will not cheerlead things which run contrary to His word.

This is like what Rush says about Democrats advising Republicans how to be better Republicans. A lot of us have taken the objection seriously and looked at it from all sides. At this point after 7500 posts on this thread alone, it's going to take more than a sampling of one store -- a sampling which evidently didn't count crucifixes as images of Jesus (or note that nearly every rosary has an image of Our Lord which is usually larger than the image of our Lady) to get me to think that there is a plague of mother worship sweeping the land.
All I say to that Mad Dawg is...

[xzins]

I said, "Mother of Jesus the Christ. "

That is the most accurate description of the one who was borne by Mary.

Jesus the Christ.

The Father was not borne by Mary. The Holy Spirit was not born to Mary.

It was the incarnate 2d person of the Godhead who was born to Mary.

[Blogger]

Just wait a few years, you will be.

Above all, let us listen to Mary Most Holy, in whom the mystery of the Eucharist appears, more than in anyone else, as a mystery of light. Gazing upon Mary, we come to know the transforming power present in the Eucharist. In her we see the world renewed in love. Contemplating her, assumed body and soul into heaven, we see opening up before us those “new heavens” and that “new earth” which will appear at the second coming of Christ. Here below, the Eucharist represents their pledge, and in a certain way, their anticipation: “Veni, Domine Iesu!

Above all, let us listen to Mary Most Holy, in whom the mystery of the Eucharist appears, more than in anyone else, as a mystery of light. Gazing upon Mary, we come to know the transforming power present in the Eucharist. In her we see the world renewed in love. Contemplating her, assumed body and soul into heaven, we see opening up before us those “new heavens” and that “new earth” which will appear at the second coming of Christ. Here below, the Eucharist represents their pledge, and in a certain way, their anticipation: “Veni, Domine Iesu!
Nice to know she is omnipresent.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

[D-fendr]

Obviously, there is neither total freedom nor total determinism.

There are influences of nature and nurture but responsibility for our actions here and now is possible. Are we not choosing in this moment whether to read this paragraph?

If we were completely determined, we would not feel questioning or uncertain about the choices we face. We'd never deliberate - or have to - if we were completely determined or completely free (of conscience). Pure determinism is disproved in every moment of our waking existence.

Selling out to determism can be an escape from the freedom we do have. A means of avoidance of our responsibility for self-determination with the limits of the freedom we do have.

Trusting in God does not negate our God-given freedom. Trust in God is a choice we have the freedom to make.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture."

If you believe that is what we have, then you hold a belief in common with the Mohammedans, FK. The reason what you have opined is off the mark is because men wrote those scriptures, they were not dictated to them by the HS or an angel and the "pretty much" final form of the canon was likewise established by men to accomplish a specific purpose of The Church.

Well, if you believe that is what we have, then it seems one of two things must be true. Either all of the writers of the Bible were independently capable of writing on the same level as God, OR, the original finished copies of all the books of the Bible were all subject to error. I do not think either of these is palatable, so I think that the inspiration under which the books were written was complete to the point of perfection. Every writer was a sinner, so anything short of this would leave the scriptures wide open to error.

Do you think men just wrote the prophesies, or were they "dictated" by God? BTW, "dictated" is not a word that I have used for this. I don't really think inspiration works like that. We see elements of personality in the writings. What I do believe, though, is that however it literally worked, all chance for error was eliminated.

Now I think all true Christians can agree that the writings were inspired by the HS and inspired in a way that other writings of the time and since were not even if they too were inspired by the HS (which, by the way, I firmly believe in many instances).

If you say that the scriptures were inspired to a point prohibiting the possibility of error, then you are either a Mohammedan just like me, or you believe that the men were equal to God. :) ---- I've never thought of divine inspiration being on a sliding scale before, as you describe, but I suppose it's possible. We are all gifted differently, and certainly some writing is better than others, so I can go with you on this.

Similarly, I think all true Christians can agree that canon "pretty much" was established ... by 4th century councils in North Africa and Rome under the inspiration of the the HS.

I have no problem with the HS leading the men of the Church in the FORMAL assembly of the scriptures at the Councils. However, I think the HS had already been fully at work establishing the scriptures through the people at the local church level from the beginning. I see the Councils not being a group of "grand discerners" on what was correct scripture, but being closer to a rubber stamp on what the people had already accepted as scriptures. I'm not saying the Councils were useless, but just closer to the latter than the former.

My point is not that because you believe as you do about the nature of the canon scripture, ipso facto, you must be Orthodox. I am saying that your beliefs about the nature of the canon are inconsistent with your rejection of the beliefs of the men who put that canon together.

How so? I don't give any individual man (or woman) credit for being so wise and brilliant as to either write a book of the Bible or correctly include it in the Canon, on his own. The nature of the Canon was that it was divinely inspired in its main assembly, done through the early laity. The Church then formally formed it through Councils, also under the direct supervision of the HS. I consider that a completely separate topic from to what degree the early Church hierarchy taught from scriptures correctly. All men are like grass and will eventually wither and die, :

1 Peter 1:25 25 but the word of the Lord stands forever ."

[D-fendr]

Merton's special to me too, for very personal reasons.

I appreciate your book suggestion and I think I may have found it - or two of it. One seems to be the original and the other a revision, maybe.

Could you take a quick look to see if this is the book you mean and if so which you think I should order?:

Original?

Revised?

thanks..

[Blogger]

Kolo, what is the foundation of your faith if you believe that the Scriptures were just men's words? What makes their words any more true than the Quran of the Bhagavad Gita, or the Adi Granth??? After all, if their words were not directly inspired and controlled by God then we have a work of human beings on our hands. If we have a work of human beings alone, then it is subject to improvising, forgetfulness, distortions of every kind. If your entire faith is based upon only what men have said (be they in the Scripture or throughout the ages as churchmen), how can you have the least bit confidence that God is even in it???? Experientialism? Hindus have that? Faith??? Muslims have that. What makes your faith any different from any other man-made religion if you believe that Scripture is merely man's word and not man's words as directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?

[D-fendr]

God works through man. We know the infinite through the finite. We are finite beings. Surely the typos and bad press runs are not 'perfectly' controlled God's word? God comes to us through the finite world, through other humans, through our senses and through our hearts.

Mistaking the finite for the infinite is idolatry. If nothing else we have imperfect communication, imperfect language, imperfect readers. All along the chain is the finite. Paul is not God. God works through Paul, He chooses an imperfect finite instrument.

But think also for a moment, God is not limited by language in His communication to us. We are not limited by language in our ability to know Him more fully and move more closely - but never perfectly - in union with God.

As we know, the scripture is not magic, the words are not magic. Scripture is one means of coming to know God, but not the only one. No words can give someone what "love" is if he does not experience it himself.

God did not pick up a pen, he picked up a man.

[FormerLib]

Ping to 7,558.

What, no answer? How curious that!