'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/

[Blogger]

My original commentary was about the relevance of what the Jews believed to be the Old Testament as well as the fact that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others were in fact Jews.

To that you stated:

Keep following the Jews and their decisions - to include their denial of Jesus of Nazareth being God in the flesh. I believe 1 John writes that such people are the anti-christ. So if you have decided to follow the Jewish decisions at Jamnia, you have just eliminated the Gospels as Sacred Scriptures. By your own mouth you are condemned.
Since your entire diatribe was irrelevant to my original statement, I brought it back to the issue of latent (and apparently not-so-latent) antisemitism that I am sensing in the thread and reminded one from Romans 11 what the status of the Jews are as well as the grafted in Gentiles. God has not thrown Israel away, though she is blinded in part. You should take the mind of Paul (and Christ) in this matter rather than harping about those evil Joooos.

And then you throw the "anti-semeticism" charge on us because we don't follow the Jewish decision?
No. Not the council of Jamnia's decision per se. They were obviously wrong when it comes to the gospels. However, there is a willingness here to throw out whatever they have said through the ages concerning the subject. When Jesus came as Messiah, do you really think that he would not have corrected them with a simple 'uh, guys, you all are calling false what is truly Scripture?' Up until that point, the 'deuterocanonical' books were not considered Scripture. Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Luke, Mark, Matthew, and anyone speaking within the books of the NT never said 'oh, by the way, those are Scripture.' In the early church, Jerome did not consider them Scripture. Yet, because you all had a hissy fit over Luther, you scream to the top of your lungs and get your licks in against the Jews as a bonus in your support of non-Scriptural books. Sorry, the attitude against anything Jewish on this thread is anti-semitic. They were and are God's chosen people and He has not mislead them concerning what was Old Testament Scripture. Their blinding came AFTER Christ.

Next, you'll be calling Jesus "anti-semetic" because of His "Woe to the Pharisees" speech...
Speaking of 'spirits.' Check yours.

[kosta50]

Because the Jews didn't accept it, thus we must remove it from the Canon. Also, it is a Deuterocanonical book and was NOT universally accepted by the Church

Not only that, but they treat the OT as something unrelated to the NT. Go figure. The Septuagint seamlessly connects the OT and the NT. The "jewish" canon of Jamnia doesn't.

[kosta50]

I notice that you say New Testament rather than saying Word of God. Why is that?

Because there are many, many versions of the bible, with redactions, deletions and additions; because they don't agree in length, context or content. Because we have no original of any one of the books of the Bible whether the OT or the NT; all we have are copies or copies, segments of copies, variations of copies, in short: books we put together as the OT and the NT comprising the Christian Bible.

If the Bible were really the word of God, we would have to fall down and worship it because every time you opened it, God would be speaking to you. I hope you'd take a bath, put on pistine fautless new clothes on, and spend hours in prayer and preparation before you even dared to touch it, let alone look at it. I would imagine you would have to read it on your knees and use a pointing stick (as the Jews do) rather than touching it with bare hands.

Oh, don't get me wrong: there is God's message in the Bible. He gave us the truth and we made up the rest of it.

[Quix]

Protestants would rather hold on to their personal truths, performing those 'reliable' self-tests.

Is it just me, Harley or is it brazenly true . . . when Protesties say something as a brazen fact about the RC's or Orthodox that the RC's or Orthodox believe to be wholesale untrue, they throw a hissy fit.

Yet, seemingly, love dishing the other side of the coin out like what? . . . like . . . cheap indulgences???

Must be some new model of consistent, congruent Righteousness I've not been able to wrap my mind around, yet. Not that I think I want to try very hard, you understand.

I think the most brazen part of such a hypocritical notion is that the RC's &/or Orthodox do not do the very thing they accuse us of in the above line.

The delusion, seems to be, to me, that the RC's and Orthodox are SAFE or safER because of this overriding magesterical and supposedly super holy !!!!TRADITION!!!!

Of course, we have seen as history has shown, that the magesterical and the supposedly super holy !!!!TRADITION!!!! have not been at all significantly more holy than individual Protesties following the Word and Holy Spirit as best they could. IN FACT, they've often been MUCH MORE HORRIBLY WORSE.

But laying that screaming hypocrisy aside for a moment . . . there's another just as insideous one running rampant through the line above. The presumption seems to be that the magesterical and !!!!TRADITION!!!! take a Vulcan Mind control grip on each and every RC and Orthodox believer and prevent ANY individual thought or action or justment or assessment from deviating a microgrm's worth from . . . from what . . . from the CURRENT CONSENSUS of the magesterical and !!!!TRADITION!!!!???

The assumption seems to be that ALL RC and Orthodox believers are 1,000% robots to the magesterical and !!!!TRADITION!!!! Not a single RC nor Orthodox believer EVER to the least microgram, sub-atomic degree EVER ponders whether a given magesterical or !!!!TRADITION!!!! related edict fits them and their current situation, or not.

It MUST BE ALL AUTOMATIC--perhaps from an ET computer chip implant inserted through some vastly advanced science a few weeks after fertilization, in the woomb . . . yes, an ET computer chip/communication chip--tied through sub-space to some galactic MAGESTERICAL and some galactic !!!!TRADITION!!!! CENTRAL where such judgments and assessments are made far above individual brain considerations.

I mean, clearly the above line implies rather brazenly and absurdly that Protesties have this automatically and chronically wholesale sinful habit of working out their own Salvation with fear and trembling as Scriptures instruct.

BUT . . . . BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT NOT the RC's and Orthodox! OH, no! Far more holy are they! They surrender all individual thought, fantasy, action to the GALACTIC MAGESTERICAL AND !!!!TRADITION!!!! CENTRAL. ALLLLLLLL their individual acts and thoughts and urges are cleared ahead of time by the GALACTIC MAGESTERICAL AND !!!!TRADITION!!!! Can't have anyone behaving like an individually thinking, deciding, acting sinful Protesty! Horrors!

That doesn't explain WHICH PART of the GALACTIC MAGESTERICAL AND !!!!TRADITION!!!! CENTRAL is construed to be the consensually perfectly holy disseminating broadcast nucleus of TRULY ABSOLUTE TRULY TRUEST TRUE TRUTH for that moment.

I mean . . . is there some individual head of the GALACTIC MAGESTERICAL AND !!!!TRADITION!!!! CENTRAL that is appointed to decide for say an 8 hour shift just exactly what absolute truth will be? Or do they rotate amongst themselves? Do the earthly popes, magestericals and !!!!TRADITION!!!! SUB-CENTRALS have input or are they merely relay stations from that absoluteness of the GALACTIC MAGESTERICAL AND !!!!TRADITION!!!! CENTRAL??? Inquiring minds want to know. Errrr, Inquiring Protesty minds want to know. Not, of course robotized, neutralized, homoginized RC and Orthodox minds. They certainly would not stoop so low as to have an individual unique thought or question about anything.

Kind of sad that.

It's interesting, Harley, how often brazen proud pronouncements are offered as though they made sense or had some foundation. I never realized before how much such theology REALLY DOES HANG ON INVISIBLE SKYHOOKS MADE OF AIRGEL, if that.

Or, am I all wet?

[kawaii]

ROCOR, the Orthodox Church I attend, is not a member of the NCC or WCC thanks.

[Quix]

The Spirit determined what the scriptures would be. Not any man or group of men.

= = = =

INDEED . . . which, seems to me, highlights the arrogance of pontificating otherwise.

I'm sure Holy Spirit is very impressed and submissively chastened.

/sar

[Quix]

Further, Paul doesn't say to do anything in the name of anyone other than Jesus Christ.

What wonderful verses to ponder. "The word of Christ", not just the red letters but the black letters are the Word of Christ. So first it is a proof text of His diety because most often the Bible is called The Word of God. We know "The Word of Christ" to be the same thing as "The Word of God". But it also puts ALL scripture at the same level. So many people, usually of very weak faith, quote Jesus as if the words in red are the most true. Paul's words, John's words, Moses' words are all just as much the Word of Christ.

= = =

Great points. Thanks.

[blue-duncan]

"ROCOR, the Orthodox Church I attend, is not a member of the NCC or WCC thanks."

I thought you said that the Orthodox Church was one church. Are you now saying there are many denominations in the Orthodox Church, and if so, what doctrinal issues separate them? For you information here is a list of the members of the World and National Council of Churches listing the Orthodox Church as a member of both.

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/mch-e.html

http://ncccusa.org/members/index.html

[Quix]

So "Holy Tradition" is big and the bible is just a little thing encompased by "Holy Tradition". GASP!
= = = =

Somewhat loosely akin to . . .

The Constitution

and the thousands of added laws and regulations since. With the greedy traitorous idiots adding more every day.

It's a very HUMAN thing . . . especially for leaders . . . and very especially for RELIGIOUS [vs RELATIONSHIP] leaders.

[Quix]

Sometimes it's clear that there just isn't any discussion possible.
= = =

or, in some cases, ANY COMPREHENSION either. LOL.

Sigh.

[HarleyD]

No he wasn't. As far as Judaism is concerned, one can be an atheist and be a Jew, but one cannot believe in Christ and be a Jew.

The way the VERY early fathers (Peter, Paul, James, etc) looked upon it, they viewed two groups, the circumcised and the uncircumcised; the Jew and the Gentile. Gentiles are grafted into true Judaism which is based upon faith, not circumcision. It doesn't matter what "Judaism" thought.

[Quix]

The way the VERY early fathers (Peter, Paul, James, etc) looked upon it, they viewed two groups, the circumcised and the uncircumcised; the Jew and the Gentile. Gentiles are grafted into true Judaism which is based upon faith, not circumcision. It doesn't matter what "Judaism" thought.
= = =

Now, Bro Harley . . . you KNOW Bros Peter, James and Paul had NO RIGHT to pontificate different than the GALACTIC MAGESTERICAL and GALACTIC !!!!TRADITION!!!! CENTRAL!

THEY TRUMP EVERYTHING--time, Apostles, sanity, logic, consistency, congruency, plausibility, horse sense, common sense, Scripture . . . they trump EVERYTHING!

Oh, dear . . . now I'm sounding like one of them . . . I'd better go slap my fingers.

[DungeonMaster]

If the Bible were really the word of God,

The bible is not the Word of God?

[Quix]

The bible is not the Word of God?
= = =

I think I should go get some popcorn. The convoluted rubber-Bible/rubber logic could be fascinating if torturous.

Sigh.

[kawaii]

there are no denominations (which are a schismatic protestant invention).

You seem to like the Roman idea of one mighty heirarchal church. That's not how Christ church was established and that's not how the Orthodox church is organized.

There are bishops with jurisdiction over given areas.

Some orthodox churches have attended the WCC and NCC to lobby protestant anti-Christians to return to Christian ways. ROCOR ain't one of them.

[HarleyD]

Is it just me, Harley or is it brazenly true . . . when Protesties say something as a brazen fact about the RC's or Orthodox that the RC's or Orthodox believe to be wholesale untrue, they throw a hissy fit.

I will say that I'm completely baffled at the lines of reasoning on this thread. If you question and disagree the legitimacy of scripture, what's there to discuss? Protestants might as well discuss among themselves the meaning of scripture and Orthodox/Catholics can discuss among themselves how to interpret today's morality in light of traditional views. All I can say is that now I understand why Protestants left. It gives me a greater appreciation for our fathers.

ALL RC and Orthodox believers are 1,000% robots to the magesterical and !!!!TRADITION!!!!

LOLOL!!!! Isn't that the truth. I never thought about it that way but you're absolutely correct.

[Quix]

ALL RC and Orthodox believers are 1,000% robots to the magesterical and !!!!TRADITION!!!!

LOLOL!!!! Isn't that the truth. I never thought about it that way but you're absolutely correct.

= = ==

Thanks for the reality check, Harley.

They can't have it both ways. Statements and logic and historical facts have implications, regardless of however much they are denied.

It just amazes me . . . even as a shrink . . . to see the willful blindness and lack of understanding of the implications for those in their mirrors of what they say.

Gets back to the IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP psychodynamics from childhood insecurities as far as I can tell or discern. Hard to explain otherwise . . . . unless one wants to get into demonology--which I HOPE is not the thing in most of these cases of idiotic statements.

Anyway--to my loom.

LUB,

[D-fendr]

If you're unable to restrain from acting on your passions, if your instincts have greater power than your restraint - or your ability to be indifferent to the lure of abusing your instincts - then you're not free. They're in control rather than your mind and heart.

"Freedom of restraint" refers to this. Maybe more accurate to say "freedom of being able to choose restraint."

[blue-duncan]

Come on, you have at least two denominations out of the same church. Now that we have established that schisms are not the sole province of "protestants" and it's just a matter of numbers, at least the schisms in the "protestants" are doctrinal, with the separation dealing with fidelity to the gospel, not territorial and political. Here is a popular history of the split between OCA and ROCOR.http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA.

"Some orthodox churches have attended the WCC and NCC"

You are being too generous. They are full members. Our churches vote with their feet when the disagreement is a fundamental spiritual disagreement. We come apart and go our separate ways rather than being seen to agree with an unbiblical position.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!