'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/

[annalex]

Now note, these (Matthew 24 and 25) are parables. Jesus does not specifically identify the Prince and the King with Himself - though as an abstract principle that is what is understood. He speaks in the second person. He is trying to illustrate a point, but is not saying that this is literally the way it will be fulfilled. Those who are is WILL work, but they are not saved by works as SCRIPTURE IN ITS CONTEXT (and yes, Annalex cherry picking Matthew 25 outside of the context of the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE is still cherry picking)abundantly and clearly says

This is a first: I cherry picked a whole chapter! well, let us see if I did:

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

[...]

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

[...]

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

This is no parable. This is a direct description of judgement at the Second Coming of Christ, Who calls himself "the son of Man" routinely. It separates the saved fromt he condemned, and it is doen strictly by their works: "as long as you did it [or did not] to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

Is Matthews 25 some kind of an odd-out chapter? Not at all: James 2 speaks of works, and Romans 2, and Apocalypse 22, and St. Paul urges to "put on love" in every letter.

Romans 2- Do you realize that there are two judgments? There is one for the saved and one for the lost.

The two judgements are the particular judgement at the hour of death, and the universal judgement at the second coming. Obviously, first the saved are separated from the lost, and then rewards are given. No argument there. But what does it have to do with Romans 2?

6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.

There is the same symmetry here as in Matthew 25: both the saved and the lost are judged by their works. One cannot judge the saved and the lost unless the saved are separated from the lost first.

# Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:1-3 (in Context) Romans 4 (Whole Chapter)
# James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

I explained it to you in the post you are responding to: St. Paul it talking of circumcision of Abraham (not salvific, Paul says) and St. James is talking fo the work of sacrificing Isaac (salvific, says James).

Abraham was justified salvifically by his faith; but if he had never done anything to illustrate that faith how would we know he was any different from the demons? Abraham's claim to faith was justified by the fact he was willing to place his faith in God regarding Isaac. Faith is a faith that works. But works are not the basis of our salvation. They are the affect of our salvation.

James explains that works are something that others can see, correct. But he does not say that works are a mere outward effect of faith. How could he? God knows Abraham's heart. Whether we know of Abraham's faith or not is not relevant. Abraham's work of sacrificing Isaac was salvific in itself and not as a demostration of faith.

S A L V A T I O N I S N O T O F W O R K S.

Will you calm down and make a coherent argument? I did cover both the Titus and the Ephesians quotes. I am familiar with the Protestant line of thought, but I do not see it supported scripturally.

ELECTION

I have no argument there: St. Paul does speak of divine election. So?

You are trying to make a distinction from the works of the law and some other kind of salvific works. Scripture makes no such distinction

Of course it is right in the scripture. Matthew 25 describes certain works that separate the saved from the lost. They are all works of love. Every time judgement of any kind is mentioned in the scripture, it is by works. When works are described as not salvific, it is always clear in context that these are works of ceremonial law, or works for temporal reward. The entire dispute that Christ had with the Pharisees was about works for social recognition, whch they were masters at. But at the same time when Christ was asked what one needs to do in order to inherit the Kingdom, He said: give what you have to the poor and follow me. So he declared some works irrelevant or even harmful to salvation, and urged other works. St. Paul repeats the same teaching in Galatians, Ephesians and Romans.

[annalex]

I try to look at Scripture from the context of Scripture itself. If James says we are justified by works and Paul says we are justified by faith, I look at the testimony of the rest of Scripture and try to see how those two thoughts are reconciled.

I respect that, and I did the same. In our discussion of works, I did not refer to anything outside of scripture, -- not to Tradition, or patristics, or personal opinions. I invited you to look at the context of Protestants prooftexts, and pointed it out. I then offered my prooftexts, that were long passages pointed to the specific issue of works, not isolated quotes.

we have a heavy reliance on Paul and interpret James by Paul and the other letters in Scripture. We believe when the Spirit inspired Paul to say that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works that this included ALL works.

St. Paul did not say "ALL" works. It is your duty as a student of scripture to (1) see what St. Paul (or St. James) is actually saying, to whom and why and (2) not pick one part of the scripture as more inspired than any other part.

When I hear differentiations such as when Paul was speaking of those kinds of works (i.e., works of the law or social works) verses the other kinds of works, I bristle. Scripture does not make a distinction.

Sure it does -- see my previous post to you. There are very clear distinctions between ceremonial works and socially visible works, on one hand, and Christian charity on the other.

[annalex]

Is it possible that in fact Rome keeping the scripture from the people did contribute to the Protestant revolution in this way.

I would disagree with this premise. The use of Latin was salutary as it ensured solidity of doctrine across jurisdictions and languages. Note, also, that when the Chruch in Russia serves in the Slavonic no Russian, I assure you, can readily understand, it is probably the same degree of separation that a Frenchman or a Spaniard would have from Latin.

On the broader point, definitely the Reformation pointed out serious problems in the Church. It is not the impulses of the early reformers that I question, it is the lack of charity and ecclesial spirit that followed.

I am pinging our resident church historian Vladimir.

[annalex]

It was Luther's reinterpretation of theology, and not attempts to correct corrupt practices, that created Protestantism

Yes. In fact, as to the questionalble practices, the Church reformed herself very well.

[annalex]

But this theology came about, I think it can be argued, as a justification ex post facto of the revolt itself and the reaction of the Latin Church to that revolt.

The core Protestant theological error: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura -- are a direct response to the rhetorical need to eliminate the Church from Christian practice. At every corner, the Reformers looked at what priests are doing, and invented a theology to bypass the priest.

[Blogger]

James was not ignored - nor is an interpretation proof. You gave your view. We have given ours. From our perspective, Paul has been ignorred while a very narrow interpretation of James has been embraced.

As to your studying Scripture for 2000 years, do not forget that our folks came out of your church by and large. We have the same heritage. When that heritage was clearly deviating from Biblical Christianity, our side made a correction. Yours evidently did as well under Loyola lest you say that there was no correction to be made. And the two streams went drastically opposite ways.

An interesting thing has occurred, Annalex, in the course of this thread. What started as a critique of a movie (a movie, by the way, which was very biblical and shouldn't be labeled unsuitable for children- though I would understand why a parent would want to explain childbirth to a very young child)about the Birth of Christ has gone far from the subject of the thread. In fact, at this point in the thread the subject of "Mary" is really not much of a topic any more. Rather, the thread has narrowed in some aspects to the key reasons that we both feel so passionate about our belief systems. Namely, the nature of salvation.

You see waves in salvation - sometimes you've got it, sometimes you may not. We don't see God working in such a way according to Scripture. Such is not a new phenomena in the history of Catholic/Protestant dialogue. Both of us are taking our stands because we believe that they are right. Both of them can't be. But how can we know? You would differ to the church. But they were mere men. They were highly fallible. So are we. How does one KNOW? Ultimately, it is going to be what/who are you going to place your faith in?

We continue dialoging because we care about the truth and the souls of mankind. But how does one know what is true? Our stand is on Scripture. Yours is on Centuries of Catholic writings/edicts/proclamations and Scripture. How do we know what is right? Just because it is older doesn't mean it is more correct - particularly when the older has controlled the writing of history for most of those centuries. So, ultimately, it boils down to being faithful to seek God in personal Bible study. It doesn't mean the writings of men have no value. But ultimately, it is your contract between you and God. You can't say "the church misled me", nor can I say "Calvin" or "Luther" misled me" It is about knowing WHY you believe what you believe and knowing it personally.

The truth is knowable. We may not get it perfectly in this life because we have limited understanding. But, it is knowable.

2 Timothy says the following:

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Now, you can take that in whatever way you are going to take it. My guess is that you will see us as the ones in the snare of the devil. We would probably look at it in the opposite way. So, both of us feel the other is in error. Nevertheless, there is one thing that we shouldn't miss in all the finger-pointing. No, in fact, two. First, we have a job.

Verse 15 says Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

We should spend our time in study of the Word of God, the Word of truth. Why? So that as we go about working for the Lord, we know why we know what we teach. It doesn't mean we will know all things and have answers to everything. But, we should strive to because it honors God.

And, second, The Lord knoweth them that are his.

I take comfort in that because my desire is to love and serve God all of my life. Satan didn't put that desire there. God did. And God knows me. That gives me assurance. And it is an assurance that has withstood some rather large waves indeed. Why? Because I know it is not of me but of the God who died for me and saved me. He is my hope. He alone is my peace.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"I would disagree with this premise. The use of Latin was salutary as it ensured solidity of doctrine across jurisdictions and languages. Note, also, that when the Church in Russia serves in the Slavonic no Russian, I assure you, can readily understand, it is probably the same degree of separation that a Frenchman or a Spaniard would have from Latin."

I think you're right. Most people who could read in continental Europe, Ireland and Anglo-Saxon England could read Latin. There were also plenty of vernacular translations circulating in mss. form.

"On the broader point, definitely the Reformation pointed out serious problems in the Church. It is not the impulses of the early reformers that I question, it is the lack of charity and ecclesial spirit that followed."

I too would largely agree with that statement, but with a qualifier. I think the so-called reformers were filled with hubris. They believed they were right, even individually right, over all the Church that stood against them.

"I am pinging our resident church historian Vladimir."

Oh, boy. Our separated brethren will love that. I can't believe this thread has gone on this long!!! Oy vey!

[annalex]

your description does not fit me. Further, I don't think it fits the other Protestants' comments toward the reasons given or implied above. Earlier on this thread, I made it pretty clear that I did not have a problem with Theotokos, AS LONG AS it accompanied an explanation

Good.

[annalex]

The RC church is NOT a well-oiled bureacratci machine. It's more like a slow inexorable avalanche

The wheels of the Vatican grind slowly, but they grind to dust.

[Forest Keeper]

Maybe this from +Gregory Palamas concerning icons of saints will explain what we are up to, FK:

"In like manner you should also make icons of the saints and venerate them, not as gods --for this is forbidden-- but because of the attachment, inner affection and sense of surpassing honour that you feel for the saints when by means of their icons the intellect is raised up to them."

Thanks for the quote. I don't think my big beef is believing anyone is really putting Mary and the saints on the same level as God. I think my "concerns" are more over the need to raise up so many figures to levels that may not be warranted. There are plenty of people who have gone before me whom I admire, respect, and whose faith I want to emulate. I just see "surpassing honour", and the like, as a bit disconcerting because it would seem too easy to forget that all these people were lost sinners, just like me. They needed Christ just as much as I do. So, I don't think Mary was great because of Mary, I think she was great because God chose her and made her great.

That makes me think of a new question. If the saints are communicating with us from Heaven, then I would have to assume that all have been "transformed" and are now sinless, etc. Is your veneration for what they were in life OR what they are now in Heaven?

[annalex]

You just can't tell me that the Deuterocanonical books were not controversial among the Apostolics

Nearly all New Testament books were controversial in a similar sense. The point remains, the same people who determined the books that you accept also included as inspired the books that you reject. "All scripture is inspired by God...".

[annalex]

the Latins call 'Deuterocanonical'

In fact, we'd rather not call them anything. They are scripture, end of story. Since some made an issue of them and mutilated the canon excluding them, we need to call them something. "Apocrypha" is clearly unacceptable, so this is the term to use.

[Blogger]

God is sovereign.

[annalex]

[James 5:16] doesn't distinguish at all among believers

Sure it does, -- it links the efficacy with righteousness of the petitioner. I do not disagree that God hears all sincere prayers.

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?

What I am saying is that I choose to turn to a saint because of the nature of the prayer, and because it feels more natural to me. I cannot speculate if that can make a difference to the point of granting or not granting a request. Ask yourself the same question when you ask a friend to pray for you, -- do you think that if you pray yourself, it will not be granted, but with the friend praying it will be.

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?

I expect Mary to pray for me to Christ, so that He is merciful to me should I falter.

[Blogger]

Is Mary omniscient? omnipresent?

[kosta50]

what would it matter?

It matters, HD, because the Christian concept of Satan being the same as the devil, which appears only in the New Testament, comes from the so-called 'apocrypha,' the books that were apparently credible to the Apostles who wrote the NT, and to the Church Fathers who put together the Chirstian canon (including the 'apocryphal' books), but were rejected 1,500 years later by Luther and his followers.

[annalex]

our perspective, Paul has been ignorred while a very narrow interpretation of James has been embraced.

The Catholic interpretation of James 2 is direct and literal. What he says, we believe: "not by faith alone are ye saved". Nowhere did I disagree or negate St. Paul. I agree with his every word. I am Catholic, remember? In fact, I quote from Paul quite a bit to proof the salvific role of works of love. In fact, is it not Paul who said "greatest of [the theological virtues of hope, faith and love] is love"?

our side made a correction

And now I scripturally corrected your "correction".

But how does one know what is true?

Familiar question. "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice" (John 18:37). This is what Christ told His disciples: "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you" (John 16:13), and also "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (John 14:26). So what is the truth? The Church is, of course, the "ground and pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

We should spend our time in study of the Word of God

As St. Jerome said, ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. My advice to all Protestants is, study the scripture but do not study it alone. Study it with the fathers of the Church, because in them you have a historical witness of the intended meaning.

[annalex]

Is your veneration for what they were in life OR what they are now in Heaven?

The veneration is of their feat of faith: their sacrifice in their life. We see Christ in them. So we venerate them, because we love Christ.

[Ping-Pong]

Timer,
Thank you for your reply. It was a pleasure to read and I feel like I've been introduced to a brand new person.

I'd like to comment on your reply but I'm zapped. It was a really busy day today. I'll try to answer it tomorrow so thank you again.

[annalex]

Look, we have seen so many professions of the leadership of the Holy Spirit here. Why is the same leadership of the Holy Spirit denied the fathers of the Church, in matters of canon or theology?