'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]

If the image of the sheep were meant to convey the eternal security of the sheep even form itself, then how come Christ speaks of lost sheep?

"the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

[annalex]

For true reformed Protestants, what point would there be in ever speaking of sin?

And for God, what point would there be of sending incarnate Christ? God should just have raptured Abel and kill Cain.

[annalex]

Whatever thing I ask my friend to pray about is what I am also praying about. If that thing is within the will of God, then I know it will be granted, no matter how many people are praying for me. If it is not, then it will not.

It appears you have no good reason to ask him to pray then, as the outcome is predetermined. But St. Paul asked for others's prayers, just to give one example.

[blue-duncan]

"then how come Christ speaks of lost sheep?"

His sheep were lost until He came. That's the point of His coming. When He gathers the last that are His, He will come again as King and Judge, but in the meantime, all that He has gathered will not be lost again or taken from Him.

[annalex]

The Church comes AFTER Scripture

This is your opinion, that happens to not accord with the scripture. There was no scripture at the Pentecost. Whatever the Rock of Peter means, Christ surely did not speak of the scripture as the foundation of the Church either.

Once more, I read what is written and you theorize about it.

[annalex]

Your theory does not accords with "there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance" that follows the discourse of lost sheep in Luke 15, and precedes the parable of the Prodigal Son. The recovery of the sheep is through penance. The Prodigal son parable elaborates on that.

[blue-duncan]

" The recovery of the sheep is through penance"

The word is repent (to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins) Luke 15:7, "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." It does not carry the idea of penance but a change of the will.

The prodigal son is just an elaboration of that. It was not the sons feeling sorry or doing anything to earn the father's disposition towards him, just his coming home, "he was lost, now he's found".Luke 15:22-24, "But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

Notice the Greek conjunction "but" that limits what the son is doing and changes the emphasis of the parable to what the father is doing. He could care less what the son is saying or doing, just that "my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found". For that, there is joy in the house.

[kosta50]

They do seem contradictory at times

I don't see any contradiction. A faith void of works is a dead faith. "Show me your faith" says +James. We will be judged on what we have done with our faith. Multiply the talents/blessings. Show mercy and forgiveness if you are going to ask God for mercy and forgiveness.

It's like winning a lottery. You can do a lot of good with it, or you can squander it. Share your blessings so that others may also be blessed. God makes it clear that He expects us to do more than just bleieve.

Righteousness is attained by faith, through good works, driven by a Christ-like heart.

[kosta50]

Righteous is a forensic term. You have defined grace as God's justice, another forensic term

The Hebrew word for God's justice is not a forensic term. It is undortunate that the Greeks actually translated it with a pagan word which is. The Hebrew term is closer in meaning to 'means of accompliashing salvation' than a forensic term.

God's justice is mercy, unwarranted and underserved forgiveness. It is a term based on love. Hardly a forensic phrase. If we are pure in heart, we are just in God's eyes. Job was not without sin, yet he was just in God's eyes.

Being righteous is in giving. We are all blessed and sharng our blessings so that others may be blessed is an expression of our rigthoeusness (if it comes from our hearts through faith in God). Multiply your talents, BD; God will judge you based on what you have done with them, not on what you believe. Faith without works is a dead faith.

[Quix]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . .

From the time of the first Jewish worship rites' "brass sea"

immersion was a part of moving into righteousness.

[Quix]

Tradition . . . focusers . . . will virtually always tend to find . . .

!!!!TRADITION!!!! under every bed, in every closet, on every wall, in every verse . . . regardless of reality.

[HarleyD]

Then either: -You have arrived at a tautology: A good decision is a good decision made by a saved Christian. You have defined away the question rather than answer it.

Are we talking about good "decisions" or good "works"? You seem to change what precisely you're looking for. To be perfectly clear about good "works", here is how the Westminster Confession defines it which I would agree with. Scriptural references are provided at the link.

Chapter XVI
Of Good Works

I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.[2]

II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the Gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11]

III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. [12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]

IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[15]

V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins,[16] but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants:[17] and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit,[18] and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.[19]

VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him;[20] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight;[21] but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.[22]

VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]

Westminster Confession on Good Works

Now, what part do you find confusing?

[kosta50]

You have said this many times on this thread. Please explain this exchange between Jesus and a scribe. Mar 3:22-24, "And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils..."

Beelzebul is not described in any part of the [post-Jamnia] Hebrew Old Testament. It suddenly appears in NT demonology. But its roots can be found in various Jewish Solomonic writings, which are mentioned by Josephus, and which were evidently written in Greek.

Thus, in the Testament of Solomon, an Old Testament psuedoepigraphical pieces, Beelzeboul is identified with Babylonbian god Helel who is associated with Light (hence Lucifer), as the prince of demons.

Nowhere in the Hebrew OT used by rabbinical Judaism and Protestants is there any association between the elusive "Beelzebub" in a variety of name forms with Helel. Judaism did not have developed demonology.

Satan is always portrayed as God's servant in the OT, even though he may be too 'eager' to carry out his duties and is, as you mention at one point, rebuked by God, but not punished.

Clearly, the writers of the NT were aware of the pseudoepigraphical demonology among the Jews in the first century. The only link between the OT and the NT where all of a sudden Satan and the devil become one and the same, can be traced to the 'apocrypha.'

[Blogger]

Scripture teaches us about God and ourselves. Sin reminds us of how far God brought us from. It gives us the humbling knowledge of how WHOLLY UNWORTHY of God's grace we are. It destroys the pride which says that we can do it in any respect on our own.

As to the early church not teaching this that you have read, I would submit the apostolicity of the doctrines. The Orthodox and Catholics repeatedly push the idea of what the early church taught -- while subverting the views of the EARLIEST church as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Predestination is a Scriptural Teaching. John Crystostom's views do not TRUMP Scripture. And, in spite of the assertion that it wasn't taught, such an assertion can not be sustained when exposed under the light of Scripture. With that said, Augustine's views, while imperfect, were nevertheless Predestinarian and had more in common with Paul's teaching (and the Reformers) than not. He saw even the beginning of the faith which saves as a gift of God and believed that God would give His saints the gift of perseverance to the end. These views were most fully developed late in his life, and I would not make the claim that He was a Predestinarian in the Calvinist sense; nevertheless, He was heading that direction. That some were predestined and others were not and that such was completely at God's initiative was very apparent in his writings. Augustine didn't pull this out of the air. He pulled it from the teachings of Paul and Peter. He pulled it from the teachings of Christ. So, where Chrysostom aligns with Scripture, he is found to be quite instructional. Where he does not (which predestination is one area where I believe he and the Orthodox/Catholics go astray) he is to be rejected.

[Kolokotronis]

"Scripture teaches us about God and ourselves. Sin reminds us of how far God brought us from. It gives us the humbling knowledge of how WHOLLY UNWORTHY of God's grace we are. It destroys the pride which says that we can do it in any respect on our own."

That doesn't cut it in your theology. Its meaningless. If the elect are predestined for santification from before all time, if they are so firmly in God's hand that there's no way out, why would any of the elect care about sin, unworthiness, etc? Conversely, why would the damned "give a damn"? They're toast, burned toast, anyway.

I understand that one would argue that election means that one will care about sin, unworthiness, pride or do good works, but absolutely none of that leads to election to the ranks of the sanctified. That's predestined from before all time. And since free will plays no part in any of this, there's no response to God's grace on the part of a person, then there is no conformance to God's rules which in any way stems from the study of scripture. And, as I have said, the damned can do anything they want, try anything they want, but they are doomed, so clearly there's nothing in the bible for them except true predictions of their own eternal torment because they didn't make the cut.

So again, what's the point of having the scriptures in your system?

[Blogger]

Annalex. Have you read Peter's sermon at Pentacost? If you had (and retained any of it) you could not say there was no Scripture at Pentacost. Just for a refresher...
Acts 2
4But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;[In Joel 2, which is in SCRIPTURE]

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. [end of SCRIPTURAL QUOTE at Pentacost #1]

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
[Beginning of Scriptural Quote #2]
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. [End of Scriptural Quotation from Psalm 16]

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
[Beginning of Scriptural Quote # 3 - from Psalm 132]
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; [End of Scriptural Quote #3]

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that[Revisitation of Scriptural Quote #2] his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.[End of Scriptural revisitation]

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, [Beginning of Scriptural Quotation #4] The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.[End of Quote #4 from Psalm 110 and the contention that there was NO SCRIPTURE AT PENTACOST]

Now, why did Peter quote Scripture at Pentacost? Because even he, an eyewitness to Christ's ministry and Apostle did not stand in his own authority but in the authority of the Word of God. The Church began with the foundation of Scripture. The Church grew in understanding with the foundation of Scripture. And, apart from the foundation of Scripture the Church has no standing. Peter found it necessary to speak using it as the foundation of his speech. Paul did the same. And Jesus HIMSELF gave us the very same example. Apart from Scripture, the Church has no standing. It is the foundation laid by the Christ and the key tool that the Spirit uses to teach us with.

Do not dismiss its importance and place the church above it. The church is not above the Word, but is subservient to it since it is the perfect revelation of God to man.

Jesus --->Holy Spirit--->Truth---->Scripture----->Church

[Blogger]

We care because God cares. We love because He loved us first. We care about sin because we do not wish to displease Him but to please Him.

What you believe that our beliefs are is a gross distortion. We are not robots, but we did need His direct intervention or we would not have come. Nobody would.

With the belief system that you have laid out, I could come and say how could anyone call salvation unmerited? How could anyone boast only in God but not in themselves even MORE than God? And, if one ounce of our "righteousness" merited even the least bit of God's salvific favor, what kind of a brute beast is he for sending His own Son to die for us if we could "have the potential" of doing salvific works for ourselves.

Kolo. I see very little difference substantively with a lot of the teaching on this thread and the teaching of Islam. In both systems, in the the end, it is dependent upon man meriting, through good works, God's favor - and even in that dying breath, noone has assurance that God has saved them and that they are heading to heaven. Rather, they hope that their goodness was good enough.

[Forest Keeper]

I would agree with Kierkegaard among others that works are largely internal -- or the part that "counts" is. And that means that actually on the ground, we may not always know if a work is "good".

It's funny, the only time I ever think about whether a work is good or not is when I'm deciding to do something I REALLY don't want to do. :) That's pretty much the only type of measurement I think I've used.

I know some very mentally ill people. Sometimes I see what I think must be an effort at real love and charity on their part. Usually it's a manipulative destructive controlling disaster! But I think they were giving it their best shot.

I agree. I think if they are of the elect, then it would still "count" as good, even if they are not formal believers due to incapacity.

But, you know, when I get up and haul the sorry carcass out of bed and, while the coffee drips, read the day's psalms and Scripture selections, over time it seems that good things happen, the first of which is that the next day I want to get up and do it again, ...

That happens to me too. God's graces do build on themselves.

First, the good work is only good by grace. My motivations are complicated and NEVER pure. My execution is ditto. The work is sort of formally good: it is good to "pray". Whatever good there is in my wanting to do it and the doing itself, is a gift.

I basically agree. I mean, I think it's possible to have a pure motivation, but of course, even if that happens, it is as you say, a gift.

Now, viewed (as IF) from the perspective of the Eternal, this was all foredoomed. But while I can imagine, very inadequately, that perspective, here on the ground there are phenomena to describe in the Christian life. And I have tried to show (pedantically, the mania hasn't kicked in yet) how I describe them, while bearing in mind that the description is provisional and inadequate, albeit conventional for RCs (I think.)

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what the bottom line is. :)

[D-fendr]

You seem to change what precisely you're looking for.

I think if you review the discussion you'll see I've tried to stay focused on the original question to Forest Keeper:

"Can only saved Christians can choose to do good?"

[blue-duncan]

The O.T. had a fully developed sense of evil spirits and "familiar" spirits and how they can inhabit mankind by leave of God. they were told not to contact "familiar" spirits. The Jews performed exorcisms as can be seen with Saul and the calling for a musician to make him well. In Luke 8:1-2, "And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils," Jesus equates evil spirits with devils which in Greek is demons. The seven sons of Sceba in Acts are just an extension of the Jewish exorcists.

When Jesus is speaking to the scribes, he is also speaking to the multitude and the disciples in and around the Sea of Galilee which is the area of the politically conservative Zealots and the conservative rabbinic School of Shammai which would not be using the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures as did the liberal rabbinic School of Hillel in Jerusalem. As Josephus, the renegade quisling Jew from Jerusalem said, the Hebrew scripture did not have the apocrypha and held a curse on any one who added to the Hebrew canon.

Jesus was speaking to scribes and the multitude who were knowledgeable that Satan, devils, evil spirits and "familiar" spirits were all of the same character from the Hebrew scriptures not the Septuagint or the apocrypha.