'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/

[jo kus]

We understand the meaning [Mary is the Mother of God]in the same way, but we might use different terms first to express the same idea.

Anything less would not be an accurate description of who Christ is.

Regards

[jo kus]

I have never given credit to the Church Fathers for putting together the Bible in the sense that the Church Fathers "created the Bible". You just can't tell me that the Deuterocanonical books were not controversial among the Apostolics. Why is there such a thing as the "Deuterocanon"? If Luther had banned the book of John, do you really think a new Council would have had to be called to "reinsert" it? I don't think so.

Apply that same logic to the New Testament Deuterocannonicals like 2 Peter, 2 John and Revelation and then ask yourself "why did Luther remove the OT Deuterocannonicals and not the NT Deuterocannonicals?" Are you still willing to deny it had nothing to do with the theology of Martin Luther?

Regards

[Blogger]

Actually, what you are describing is presuppositionalism. Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark are two of the names associated with this view. You presuppose the Bible is true and evaluate the evidence based upon that presupposition. I think Gordon Clark may have become a hyper-Calvinist but that is not related to presuppositionalism. It is just the starting assumption by which all other assumptions are evaluated.

[Mad Dawg]

Amen to that.

Further it seems to me that when you come to the Bible looking for God, He speaks.

I mean there's what you might call cognitive reading (I'm sure there's some official term somewhere) and then there's listening reading. That's for what I would glibly call "knowing ABOUT God."

And one of MY personal reasons for confidence in the Scriptures as inspired is that they are a temple where God's Word for ME, right now, is. And that's "knowing God."

[kosta50]

Actually, the Church's position on this is that they did not 'put together' the Christian canon; instead they 'confirmed' the canon. A subtle but significant difference

Selecting and verifying only those scrolls that were deemed inspired based on the knowledge of the faith and then assembling a list of scrolls/books that are Christian canon (New Testament) is merely 'confirming?' You guys never cease to amaze me!

Kosta: The concept of a 'devil' does not exist in Judaism

HD: quotes Job 1:6-8 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them

HD: I wouldn't say it doesn't exist

It's not a matter of (dis)agreement, HD; it's a fact: the Jews did not/do not consider Satan a fallen angel but one of the "sons of God." Find me ONE Jewish reference that says otherwise.

The early Church recognized the inspiration of the Old Testament as well as the New. The rejection of the Old Testament is, in part, a heretical view know as Marcionism

Is this somehow related to the current topic?

I'm not that familiar with ancient Jewish teaching (it has changed) but if this is what they believe, I would agree

Ancient Jewish teaching never considered ha-satan (which is not even a proper name) anything but a servant of God. Sadducces rejected, among other things, all angels and they were as much Jewish as the Pharisees. The rabbinical Judaism of today comes from the latter. In either case, ha-satan was never a fallen angel.

Angels do not and never had free will, nor can they rebel against God

Angels do not and never had free will, nor can they rebel against God

You are then denying that Satan is the fallen angel who rebelled against God, which is an exclusive Christian teaching?

But clearly the Jews, at least in Job, understood there to be fallen angels

Where does it say that? Fallen how? Fallen on earth, like a bird falls on earth? LOL! According to Judaism, ha-satan's assigned place was earth to tempt humans. He is included among the 'sons of God' in the book of Job.

It's Christianity that's in a dire predicament to explain God conversing with His fallen angel, and not Judaism. Satan certainly is not portrayed as a fallen angel in that book, as he is not in any part of the Old Testament.

Please consult Jewish sources on what Judaism believes about Satan and how ha-satan became synonymous with the devil in the New Testament (hint: the so-called OT "Apocrypha").

[Mad Dawg]

Tom Cruise? Is that you???

LOL

Lissen: I'm trying to be all pious and reasonable here ....

[Mad Dawg]

To tell people that they are already 'predestined' to salvation or damnation creates fatalism and spiritual sloth.

Doggone it! I don't want to be arguing FOR doulbe whatever, but I don't see evidence on the ground of what you say.

I disagree with those who believe in DP and who claim to possess the "blessed assurance", but I would never describe the ones I know personally as slothful. Manic, yes; untiring busybodies, some of them certainly. But while the RCs are represented way beyond their proportions at our small southern town's ministry to the hungry, them thar Babdisd's are energetically involved.

I know that's not spiritual as such, but it ain't hay either. The Pastor and I used to meet monthly or so for prayer and conversation: no sloth there, not on his part. I personally am VERY slothful, or, as I like to put it, thoughtful and deliberate, just as soon as I get dressed.

[The_Reader_David]

Spiritual sloth is inattention to one's own soul. It is quite compatible with being a busybody and attending to other people's souls (in an unhelpful way): as Neko Case laments of her small-town neighbors in one of her songs '. . .mind all of my business, and none of their own. They're all so happy now that I done wrong, I'm surprised they don't come over to thank me.'

[Mad Dawg]

Oh yeah, even I get that ;) . That's why adduced my Baptist pastor friend. It seems to me any activity, from rosaries to Bible reading to giving one's body to be burned, could coexist with interior sloth. But as attempt at an argument a posteriori that double predestination and "blesses assurance" lead to sloth will need some evidence, I think. And I'm not seeing any. And an a priori argument will ..., well, let's stand back and watch. I bet the fur will fly.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views and providing the additional details! And thank you for your encouragements.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the clarification! Truly, I tend to reject labels out-of-hand. LOL!

You presuppose the Bible is true and evaluate the evidence based upon that presupposition. I think Gordon Clark may have become a hyper-Calvinist but that is not related to presuppositionalism. It is just the starting assumption by which all other assumptions are evaluated.

Actually my starting point is a bit more than the Bible as I define it to be the revelation of God the Father through:

1) the Person of Jesus Christ (getting to know Him personally,)

2) the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit (yielding to His leading,)

3) the Scriptures and

4) the Creation (both spiritual and physical.)

However, I see all of this as one unified revelation because all four revelations are self-consistent.

That is Truth for me and everything else is a distant second, third, etc. - including sensory perception, reasoning, counsel of mentors, etc.

IMHO, everyone has a starting position whether he realizes it or not. Surely it would help all of us to be aware of our presuppositions.

For instance, some around here seem to elevate Aristotlean logic above revelations of God in certainty and therefore demand that God must be "logical" in their own eyes.

Others seem to put sensory perception first, like doubting Thomas - they are only certain of what they can see, hear, touch, etc.

Still others seem to be more certain of the counsel of their trusted religious leaders.

Perhaps that should be a topic for a Religion Forum research project? Where are you "coming from?" LOLOL!

[klossg]

And further, if a man is truly led by the Holy Spirit, that man most likely will not be grieving the Holy Spirit with heavy sin.

I know plenty o people who I can identify as those who possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as His children. Why is it not all of them do not commit heavy sin. (Heavy sin being your way of saying mortal sin). Thus, they do commit mortal sin and possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ. Some are or have been in the news. Others commit sins but are not in the news.

As a man is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, he desires to sin less and less.

This I can agree with. But, people in this state are still capable of mortal sin. You apply Paul's letter to Titus to the Catholic Church. I say the Catholic Church does not fit the characterization you imply with Paul's words. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

I think you paint the Catholic Church as you want it to look and be. You want it to be like the Pharisees. If you need an enemy, like Sunni's need Shias, then you have made yourself your own enemy. I am sure you have been guided to do so simply by human relations. Human beings love to justify their positions and logic. Even if a position must vilify another group of humans, it is worth it to justify ourselves. The Catholic Church does not claim that it has grace from anywhere but Jesus Christ.

The same Paul, in the same letter to Titus says "For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents." - Titus 1:7-9. These are descriptions of how a holy man should act. Christianity as taught by Paul is not just a call to faith but a call to acts. Not that the acts justify salvation. No not at all and the Catholic Church does not preach that, but being human we need to be reminded to follow God's commandments. And again Paul makes his point "They claim to know God, but by their deeds they deny him. They are vile and disobedient and unqualified for any good deed." Titus 1:16. Paul goes on describing the acts of good Christians in Chapter 2 as well. You say it is sanctification and you leave the Catholic Church and Catholics out of this process for the most part.

Your straight forwardness is good. I would hope that you seek more than just a villain in the Catholic Church. She is not terrible at all. Much good moral teaching comes through the Catholic Church. Many times the Catholic Church stands alone against secularism. Please reevaluate your position on the Catholic Church. I am in no danger. It is my immortal soul on the line. If there was anything to your anti-Catholic points, I would thank you and get out. There isn't. Some people may run from the Catholic Church but that is because they have not been educated or really heard or read the Bible or the Church's teachings.

[Blogger]

Gotta coin? I think a lot of decisions are made that way as there is a lot of inconsistent thinking as well.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Perhaps that is a good indicator that one should spend some time in prayer and meditation to understand how he knows Truth?

[Quix]

My construction on reality is

that Holy Spirit preserved and decided the Canon.

He could have probably used . . .

donkeys, monkeys, rocks . . .

to do so . . . given His ability to raise up rocks as children of Abraham.

[Quix]

Thanks.

I concur. I have very decided biases in favor of Scripture--plain Scripture--without reading tons of possibilities into it--though those can be fascinating on occasion and some may even be right.

But in my experience of God, life and Scripture, the plain interpreting of Scripture as it plainly states things has always been the most productive and life giving, life enhancing route, for me.

[HarleyD]

Selecting and verifying only those scrolls that were deemed inspired based on the knowledge of the faith...You guys never cease to amaze me!

Just quoting the fathers.

It's not a matter of (dis)agreement, HD; it's a fact: the Jews did not/do not consider Satan a fallen angel but one of the "sons of God." Find me ONE Jewish reference that says otherwise.

What the Jews believe today is inconsequential. We would have to find out what they believe 3,000 years ago. I suspect their theology has changed over that time.

Is this [sic: Marcionism] somehow related to the current topic?

Your statement seemed to indicate that you don't accept the Old Testament as the inspired word of God.

Ancient Jewish teaching never considered ha-satan (which is not even a proper name) anything but a servant of God.

How can you tell? I've gone through several sources now (including the online Jewish Encyclopedia) and, although I understand what today's thinking is, there is not much indication as to what the thinking was centuries ago by Jewish scholars. In fact, the Jewish Encyclopedia sound strangely like New Advent. As you've pointed out the Saducees and Pharisees both held radically differing views.

You are then denying that Satan is the fallen angel...

No. I denying angels have "free" will which, btw, is another Jewish teaching.

It's Christianity that's in a dire predicament to explain God conversing with His fallen angel, and not Judaism.

I'm not in any "dire predicament". Satan fell because God ordained it but He stills retains control over and converses with Satan and other fallen angels to do His will. It's the rest of Christianity that's in a dire predicament.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

Indeed, IMHO, the first thing a person ought to do when a passage is not clear is to pray about it - and the second is to listen for the Spirit's leading.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Is there a Biblical principle that says that one believer's prayers are greater than another's because of status or position?"

... But to the question of scripture, sure: "For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much" (James 5:16)

That doesn't distinguish at all among believers. The OVERWHELMING message in the Bible is that God hears the prayers of believers and does not hear them from unbelievers. If one prays in the will of God, he will receive, if he does not he will not.

Isa 59:2 : 2 But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

Prov 15:29 : 29 The LORD is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous. [This goes hand in hand with your verse.]

1 John 5:14-15 : 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us — whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him.

There is nothing that says to turn over our prayer requests to Saints or to Mary because they have greater stature. My prayer stands or falls based on whether I am a believer and whether I am praying in God's will. Are you really saying that there are prayers that you have, but since you think God won't grant YOU a favorable answer you turn the prayer over to a Saint and then you will get a favorable answer? Does God really fall for this? :)

FK: "When I see the words "Holy Mary, save me!", the last thing in the world I think of is a prayer request. "

Yes, but you are not familiar with the Orthodox frame of reference. I put this plea in the context of the Incarnation and have no such confusion.

Well, a few days ago Kolo showed me one Orthodox frame of reference. It was a prayer that looked just like an intercession. "Pray for me". I don't know what you mean by putting the plea into the context of the Incarnation in terms of changing the appearance of the plain meaning.

FK: "Other than this has been advertised to me."

Really? The first thing one would say about the saints is that we give them honor. Intercession is secondary. They are the martyrs who gave you your religion, and paid with their lives. Literally. Think about it.

You said: "Also keep in mind that we do ask the saints for things other than prayer." (7889) It has been advertised to me that Catholics only look for intercession from saints, that people are not worshiping and looking for divine action on their parts. If anyone believes a saint can individually grant a supernatural request, such as salvation, then that is worship and not a request for prayer.

If we get right down to the nuts and bolts of it, let me just ask: when you pray to Mary: "Mary save us!", what exactly do you expect Mary to do for you? What actions are you asking Mary to take?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Some people may run from the Catholic Church but that is because they have not been educated or really heard or read the Bible or the Church's teachings.

I have confidence if we keep reading the Bible, we'll understand. I've enjoyed our conversation. 8~)