'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."

The "each one is a pope" is a valid caricature because it exposes the conceit that you do not deny, that each one can claim guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Conceit? :) We say the Spirit loves us and helps us, and that is conceit? You say that the Spirit only helps your hierarchy, and that isn't conceit? Well, I suppose that we will continue to think of the Spirit as being a loving and very personal God, and you will continue to think of Him as being ........... something else. :)

But the Church does not teach its truth dogmatically, -- like in any approved private revelation I am free to believe or disbelieve the revelations at Fatima.

Then how does the Church teach its truth? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

There is a score of other personal opinions that I am confident about, theological and otherwise. ... They are separate from what is infallibly taught by the Church. ...... But I am yet to see a Protestant admit that his views on Sola Scriptura, or on Sola Fide are personal opinions that he feels confident about. They always say "I know it from the scripture".

Well of course, that is our system. We don't have a pope. Again, you are requiring a pope. Why do you do that? :) The only way an admission would be due from a Protestant is if we agreed that the pope has the only say. Of course we do not, so there is no issue of "admission". For interpretation, our confidence is not in God through a pope, it is in God through His own word. We can honestly disagree on which is correct, but you can't say we are not allowed to have confidence because we don't have a pope.

This is the Catholic teaching: lifelong process of sanctification in the individual. The Church, however, received the deposit of Faith from Christ. It was sanctified at that moment, at Pentecost; look it up in Acts.

If your Church was fully sanctified at Pentecost then why would you give one pope the power to overrule her? (Further comments at the end of the next post)

You admit the main statement, that your lines of authority do not converge at the top, even ideologically, right? So I will be brief. All protestants claim the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture Alone.

No, this beginning would be like my saying that Catholics and Muslims disagree ideologically, therefore, both are wrong since they both claim to believe in God. I do not claim any allegiance to all Protestants. It is a non-starter to say that Sola Scriptura is wrong because some groups calling themselves Protestants claim wacko views based on Sola Scriptura. The doctrine, as formally identified by the original Reformers, is most faithfully practiced by the Reformers of today. Other Protestants practice it to lesser degrees.

In contrast to that, we do not have ideological disagreements with the Orthodox: we understand the Tradition, including the scripture, identically, and vary where there is legitimate room for disagreement inside the same Tradition.

Really? You and the Orthodox understand the scripture and Tradition identically? Your differences are basically "small potatoes" within Tradition? My wild guess is that you might find some "legitimate room for disagreement" FROM the Orthodox on that view.

FK: "I find it highly ironic that you would be complaining about the plain text of scripture. You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that you favor it more than we do."

Absolutely I can. When things are in the scripture they are in the scripture. If the scripture said "you are not saved by faith alone" then that is what it is, sola fide is wrong, 'cuz the Bible tells me so. Now, there are things that are not in the scripture. For example, veneration of saints is not directly in plain text in the scripture. Then we can argue tradition, etc. But we read the scripture literally. You don't -- you spin it.

There are too many examples to list. Your literal reading of "all have sinned" is "all have not sinned". Your literal reading of "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" is "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have temporary life until he commits the next sin". Your literal reading of " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, ..." is "For it is by grace you have been partially and temporarily saved, partially through faith — and this definitely partially from yourselves, it is somewhat the gift of God— absolutely by works, with God's help."

The point is that for every example you can come up with, we can come up with A LOT more. Don't forget, we say the Bible speaks for itself. You say the Bible is indecipherable without the Church's interpretation. I agree with you. There is NO WAY the literal taking of the Bible comes anywhere close to Roman Catholic theology. Except in very limited circumstances, you have no case to make that Roman Catholicism has any regard for the literal words of scripture. Why else would your hierarchy have sheltered your laity away from those words for so many hundreds of years? If your hierarchy simply reflected those literal words, there would be nothing to be afraid of. Yet, their actions betray the opposite truth.

(Continued on next post....)

(Continuing:)

[The following is on FK's proposed experiment to put 100 spiritually-neutral, but intelligent people in a room with a Bible. They had to read it cover to cover and then answer a series of fair questions to discern what their respective understandings of "faith" were.]

I would say that you may be correct, by the way: the Reformed theology is far better suited for the modern man. This is why modernity is in such crisis, thanks, chiefly, to Luther.

You're blaming Luther and the Reformers for the cultural crisis we see in America today? :) OK, I suppose that statement just speaks for itself. LOL! Specks and planks, Alex.

I am predicting something a bit different. If your 100 men read the Bible for what is written, ignore all traditional or historical knowledge, but somehow avoid projecting their 21c mentality into what they read, they will be with the Catholics/Orthodox on the role of scripture, on the irresistibility of grace and the role of good works, and on the role of the Church.

Where are you getting this idea that Reformed theology somehow especially caters to a 21c mentality? It obviously catered pretty well to a 16c mentality since it spread so far and so quickly. To a great extent, the Reformers of today believe in exactly the same things as the original Reformers. Our theology has not molded itself for a contemporary audience.

On the results of the hypothetical test, we will just have to agree to disagree. All of the following is based on the premise of a single reading of the Bible by a disinterested, intelligent person. No life-long study is part of the experiment. There is no way in the world the Bible could objectively be read to provide for its equal (in authority) in the form of Tradition. No way. Irresistibility of grace might be a wash, objectively. The role of good works might also be a wash, but for different reasons. All say a saved Christian does and must do good works. I think the reader would probably stop there. And on the role of the Church, the last thing in the universe the reader would ever come up with is the current, or even historical, RCC. It's not even close. The benevolent dictatorship that is the RCC is found no where in scripture. Church melding with state is not found in scripture. No, the reader would have no chance of coming up with how the RCC has defined itself.

They will not know about the lives of the saints, but they will conclude that praying to the Apostles, Mary, and St. Stephen (the saints mentioned in the scripture) for intercession is a good idea.

What do you have, a couple of verses even arguably supporting this view? You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone? You can't be serious. :) No one would conclude that attempting to communicate with the physically deceased is Christian behavior based on the totality of scripture.

They will not know whether to baptize babies.

Despite my bias, I still think the weight of example leans toward a believer's baptism. However, I have room for compromise here.

They will not form a solid trinitarian theology.

Depending on what you mean by "solid", I would disagree. I think the principles of the trinity are laid out very well in scripture. They are each spoken of in divine senses, and brought together as persons in the commandment on baptism.

They will be prone to various christological errors. One thing they will not be: they will not be Protestant at the four solas core.

Barring that any of them were memory wizards, yes, they would be prone to errors. That's why teachers are useful to connect different passages of scripture together. That is what Sola Scriptura does. Had I qualified for the experiment, I would not have wound up with all the beliefs I hold now. I do not have the capacity to remember and connect all the ideas in scripture together based on one reading. However, I do maintain that one reading would have left me much closer to Reformed theology than to Catholicism.

But of course, it is not really possible not to inject 21c into that experiment. This is why the entire idea is false: ...

Who cares about 21c.? Why is that such a big deal? I'll take 100 intelligent, disinterested, and unbiased persons from any time since the original Canon and say the results would be the same.

... the only way to objectively read the scripture is to read it in the company of the Church Fathers and through their eyes. If one were to do that, he will be 100% Orthodox or Catholic.

What??? :) That is objective? Is there a new on-line dictionary I am unfamiliar with? :) BTW, how do you figure that anyone reading through the Fathers would wind up "all Catholic" or "all Orthodox"? That's a pretty big difference on some very important things. Since our hypothetical reader is starting from a "blank slate" what about him do you think would lead him into one camp or the other?

----------

There is nothing that separates Catholics and Orthodox about fundamentals of the faith anywhere near the degree of separation between Calvinists and the Arminians. Which difference specifically do you think exists that "comes to mind"?

How about the nature of grace? You also disagree on original sin. As far as I know, Calvinists and Arminians disagree on basically one very big thing. Otherwise, we apologize side by side on almost everything else. When I made my comment, it occurred to me that that one big thing "might" be comparable is size of scope to all of the differences you have with the Orthodox put together. You can't tell me those differences are insignificant because you are in schism, and have been for a millennium.

His infallibility simply means that if the entire college of bishops goes in apostasy, the Pope can correct them alone, and the Holy Spirit guides him: ...

How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost? It would seem impossible, wouldn't it? Therefore, that would seem to eliminate the concept of papal infallibility, and even the need for a Pope.

St. Peter says, "make your election secure" and that is in accordance with the assertion that it is secure?

Yes. Obviously, Peter was talking about his audience being able to be sure for themselves that they were saved. The truth of one's salvation does not equal his knowledge of it. Assurance is available to all believers, but it does not mean all who are saved apprehend it. Perhaps YOU are a glittering example. :) This is one reason I think there are so many outward callings in scripture. They are to help the believer understand exactly what he has in his relationship with Christ. I think the set-up to your verse is pretty clear:

2 Peter 1:5-9 : 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

Verse 9 shows that the mind of a believer is subject to less than full understanding. The believer who is not doing the things listed has forgotten what has been done for him. This happens to true believers. Peter is reminding them so as to keep their minds on the lookout for this occurrence. Now, we have your verse:

2 Peter 1:10 : 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, ...

Peter is urging them to never forget what Christ has already done. He is telling them that the works he spoke of are an evidence of the faith that God has already given them. The doing of the works, as evidence, will make their assurance more secure. Taken in the way I "think" you mean the verse, election itself would be determined by works.

FK: "Our difference is whether God elects according to His will or according to man's will."

Nope. We teach that God elects based on his foreknowledge of man's free will choices.

This follows my above. You are saying that man elects himself, and then God just writes down the names outside of time. Then, "from the beginning" He elects them. This is a mockery of any rational concept of predestination and relegates God to the role of stenographer. Either God chooses, or man chooses. I say God chooses.

The scripture does not teach presumption. It teaches against it, see the parable of a publican and a pharisee praying.

The parable does not apply because the presumption is not in oneself, it is in believing that God's promises are true. In many cases the Catholic Church does not believe that God has made a promise when God has made a promise. For example, when Christ says:

John 10:27-29 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

By Catholic interpretation, there is no lasting promise here at all, despite what the plain text says. Your interpretation is that Christ didn't mean what He said and promised. Instead, by the view of your hierarchy, Christ actually meant that He gave no one literal eternal life, but only the possibility for it. In addition, Christ meant that a man snatching a soul from the Father's hand was child's play, in the case of that man himself. This nullifies God's promises. We, OTOH, take Christ at His word and rely on His promises. We presume that God meant what He said on these, and about assurance verses generally.

Yes, you can come back to me with the verses about the Keys, and about binding and loosening, etc., and say that I don't take Christ for what He said. BUT, the examples are going to weigh 10 to 1 against your side. We encourage "prospects" to just read the Bible by themselves. You couldn't possibly do that if you wanted them to become Catholics.

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.