'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

What a beautiful testimony, dear Kolokotronis! Thank you so much for sharing those insights!

At the risk of getting into semantics on such a vital Spiritual matter (and any difference would have to be mere semantics) --- I would like to mention that even most physicists will admit two crucial points of causation that lead to the conclusion that “existence exists” or to put it in the terms God used, I AM. They are:

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

Thus all cosmologies whether inflationary (big bang), multi-verse, ekpyrotic, cyclic, hesitating, multi-world, imaginary time or whatever – all of them – require space/time for physical causality.

In other words, even in physical cosmology, there is always a beginning ex nihilo of space/time, a cause for causation itself.

And there is no other possibility for the uncaused cause than God Himself. Thus some physicists sum it up by saying “existence exists” evidently because they cannot quite bring themselves to name God while “doing” science. LOL!

The Hebrew term for the Greek phrase or concept you have used is Ayn Sof which is God the Creator, The term basically means “no-thing”- One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves.

In Metaphysics, Aristotle speaks of first cause and final cause in terms of the finite – but of a Truth, Jesus Christ is The First Cause and The Final Cause, Alpha and Omega. Interestingly, Revelation refers to both the Father and the Son as Alpha and Omega.

I don't recall saying anything about reading someone's mind nor indicating that I had.

But Scripture as well as common sense makes a clear distinction between what we as humans say and what we as humans DO.

It is a VERY legitimate aspect of such discussions. Pretneding otherwise, is utter nonsense. Pretending otherwise ONLY when it suits one's perspective is duplicitous, hypocritical and transparently . . . less than Christ-like, imho.

Y'all accuse Protesties of saying one thing and doing another quite frequently. Guess that's only a one way street authorized by the magicsterical for travel ONLY by RC's. The shoe never fits the other foot. The other side of the coin is never considered. And use of mirrors on that topic, field are cardinal sins.

Tough tacos. I plan to continue to note that actions speak louder than words, whenever it feels fitting.

When a given body posture; a given tone of voice; a given word choice; a given facial expression; a given look in the eyes all speak loudly to me of adoration or veneration over the line into UNBiblical worship, I'll, by God's Grace, continue to note same.

Thankfully, I have a LOT of years of experience in Buddhist etc. Asian countries where idol worship is clearly over the line of the Biblical standard. I'm not just comparing apples to . . . nothing.

Also, thankfully, I have a robust amount of experience with a diverse and signinficant number of RC's who didn't sound like, walk like, waddle like, float like, quack like, swim like, fly like Mary-olaters. They had strong affections for Mary and crossed many lines I wouldn't toward Mary but still seemed to realize and relate to here much more authentically as Christ's mother, period--without any Mary-olatry. So, it's not as though I have NO Biblically kosher RC's to compare behavior on.

And, BTW, it's not as though I'm not trained in observing human behavior and making fair-minded, accurate assessments of same. I am--with the highest of marks & affirmations about same by my profs.

In summary--yeah--for an uncertain percentage of RC's Mary is UNBiblically idolized, worshipped. That's a clear fact. What percentage, I don't know. Any is too many.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Faulty mariology = faulty Christology.

Dividing out the overtly identical portions results in:

~~Faulty~~ Mary~~-ology~~ = ~~faulty~~ Christ-~~ology~~

Leaving very plainly and overtly:

MARY = CHRIST

Very straight forward. Very simple logic. Very simple fact. Very simply true for those with such in their hearts and spirits.

That's simple enough for my math skills.

"In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist."

OK, and thus, God does not "exist" in any way that physicists, or the rest of us for that matter, exist or can meaningfully comprehend, except through the Incarnation. +Athanasius the Great in "On the Incarnation" argues that the Incarnation occurred because, among other reasons, mankind needed God to tangibly exist as a man for us to understand enough about God that we could fulfill our original created purpose which was to be fully in the image and likeness of God, our ability to receive and respond to God's grace having been lost in the Fall. Prior to the Fall, as we know, Adam and Eve knew God in an intimate way; He walked in the Garden as we are told. Abraham, Moses, some of the prophets, knew God in nearly as intimate a way, but they were few and far between and even they were in bondage to death through the Sin of Adam; even they, holy patriarchs and prophets, could not become beings in the likeness of God.

In Christ God becomes tangible, "real" for us, someone we can, for lack of a better term, "relate to", touch, see, taste. The history of the Jewish people prior to the Incarnation demonstrates why this was necessary in the economy of salvation. There weren't all that many OT righteous, were there! It seems however, that God simply becoming man was not and never would be enough to effectuate our theosis because the Fall did more than merely darken the collective nous, or eye of the soul, of mankind to the point of near opacity. Adam's Sin so distorted mankind's "spiritual DNA" that we chose, and often choose, sin over God. Rather than responding to God's grace and transform our lives into a likeness of God, we make choices which cause us to "miss the mark" (amartia=sin)which is God. That Sin of Adam makes us love our sins but sin exacts a terrible price on each of us as individuals and on Creation as a whole. Because God gave us dominion over the earth, our failing to be like God corrupts everything around us and the result of that, ultimately, is death, a permanent separation from God. In this sense, we become like the sterile fig tree, lovingly planted and given all that is necessary to thrive and fulfill its purpose of producing figs, but doesn't. It is fit only to be uprooted and burned. Christ simply being here with us, in and of itself, was not and would never be enough.

The penalty of our sin, death, had such a grip on humanity that it held us behind "bronze doors" in a bondage so strong no man could break it. By publicly sharing in our physical death, Christ could "descend to the dead" and confront death in its abode. +Chrysostomos says, "He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he said, "You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with. It was in an uproar because it is mocked. It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed. It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated. It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive. Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see. O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?"

The bronze doors were broken open and the bonds of death shattered. We are no longer doomed by reason of Adam's Sin. We can be transformed into the likeness of God as we were originally intended to be. God of course could have dispensed with all of this and simply told us He had "waved a hand" and death was done for. God of course knows His creatures better than we know ourselves. He didn't need the Incarnation with the birth, life, crucifixion, death and Glorious Resurrection of Christ. We did and do. He didn't create sin and death, we did. He didn't place in bondage to death, we did. But..."...God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish,..." And so we call God "Φιλανθροπε" Lover of Mankind.

Now this comes full circle, AG. The ancient Greek philosophers spoke of an unmoved mover, others of a first cause. Physicists today theorize right up to a transcendent God but stop just short. The devotees of Mohammedanism recognize the complete transcendence of God and stop right there, worshiping an unknown indeed unknowable monster (an inevitability since they reject the death and resurrection of Christ). Even some Christians, while acknowledging that God is the Lover of Mankind, view the crucifixion and death of Christ as an event demanded by God to satisfy some blood lust of God's on account of our sinfulness. But what we really have as Christians is an assurance that if we "take advantage" of the opportunity presented to us through grace to transform our lives into a likeness of God, we can share "eternally" in the divine energies of our utterly transcendent God. This is a unique understanding of the economy of salvation throughout the history of mankind. It has never ceased to amaze me since we alone, existing, created beings, can come into communion with, know, love and be loved by "Ο ΩΝ", Who does not "exist".

Magnificent essay, dear Kolokotronis! Sad that it is posted on such a long, old thread – it would make for a great article in its own right, especially in light of the last paragraph.

And thank you oh so very much for your encouragements and insights, dear kosta50 and Quix!

Because the subjects I'd like to address are related to all of your posts, I hope y'all don't mind that I am consolidating the reply here.

kosta50: As far as "time" is concerned, it records change. Change is the result of corruption, for that which is incorrupt doesn't change. Thus, we say that God is eternal (a chronological concept) because He is without corrption and outside of nature (i.e. supra-natural).

Indeed, Aristotle used counting (1,2,3 etc.) to explain time.

And since the 1850’s, when Rudolf Clausius first identified entropy, scientists point to that phenomenon to explain time. Entropy is energy turned to waste, the concept that eventually became known as the “second law of thermodynamics.” Cars rust, our bodies fall apart with age, etc. and thus man senses that time proceeds in one direction (the arrow of time.)

Side comment: I might add that the sense of time passing would be the obvious consequence of being an observer "in" space/time. An arrow of time is meaningless in timelessness.

But of a truth the concept of change v permanence vis-à-vis the sense of time passing is quite ancient. Heraclitus, a pre-Socratic philosopher, was first to identify that dynamic relations obtain between permanence and flux. And we can see that dynamic in the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

IOW, the first law of thermodynamics is that energy is conserved (permanence) and the second the energy is dissipated, i.e. entropy increases (flux.)

It also has a parallel in mathematics, i.e. the fractal. Fractals display self similarity at all scales. A common example is a coastline, the shorter the ruler, the longer the length measured.

Or for more fun, try the Mandelbrot set by clicking here. Just click on the “draw set” and “ok” - then click on zoom in (or out) and select some point and “ok”.

The two aspects of permanence and change become apparent in viewing the Mandelbrot set – the infinite and the finite – the self-similarity that obtains.

Eugene Wigner coined the term “unreasonable effectiveness” in his famous essay when he illustrated that math is unreasonably effective in understanding nature. A great example is Riemannian geometry which was described with no known application for it – and yet when Einstein was needing to describe the structure of space/time, he was able to pull Riemannian geometry off the shelf to do so.

Fascinating.

The flux/permanence phenomenon also can be seen in biological systems. For instance, “you” remain “you” even though every molecule in your body is replaced every seven years. Likewise, every molecular machine in your body will struggle for “you” to survive, even though the machinery has no brain or physical reason to do so. For instance, the molecular machinery will find new paths to route blood around dead tissue in your heart should you suffer a heart attack.

My assertion is that God the Father has revealed Himself in four different ways: in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son – in the Holy Spirit – in Scriptures – and in Creation.

More specifically to our conversation here, I assert that we can see all four revelations speaking of this dynamic relationship between permanence and flux. God is permanent (I AM) whereas carnal men (who have not yet become Christian) are entirely in the flux of this corrupted, physical realm.

Yet for those of us who have died to this world, the new heaven and new earth is assured - and there perhaps there will be no flux anymore:

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. - Ex 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. – Malachi 3:6

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. – Hebrews 13:8

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. – John 3:6-7

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. – Gal 2:20

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Col 3:3

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. – Matt 10:39

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea... and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end... – Rev 21:1-8

Praise God!!! Maranatha, Jesus!

kosta50: In other words, the galactic realities tell us that corruption predates man. And that clashes with everything the Bible says.

The leaning that I have in the Spirit sees no problem here, i.e. that Genesis 1 is written from the aspect of God as the observer and author and the subject is not only the creation of the physical realm but the spiritual as well. Further, the leaning I have is that Genesis 2 through 4 occur in the spiritual realm and culminates when Adam is banished to mortality thus beginning the Adamic clock, Rosh Hashanah – Adam’s “birth” date, when his mortal clock began .

Scriptural evidence for all of this includes:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Gen 1:1

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. – Gen 2:1

The Tree of Life which is in the center of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:9) and Paradise (Rev 2:7)

“And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,” in Genesis 2

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden where Adam could observe it (fruits of good and evil) but he was strictly forbidden to feed on it, to take the fruits into himself under pain of death, death (muwth muwth – Gen 2:17)

That Adam was told he would die on the very day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:17) – and he died after being being a mortal for 930 years (Gen 5:5). And a day to God is 1,000 years to man (Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8)

All of you may strongly disagree with the above which is plenty ok with me because whereas we are each led by the same Spirit - yet we may have differences in understanding – not unlike the differences between John, Peter, Paul, James, Thomas, etc. If each of us were to look at a seven faceted diamond from a different aspect, we may see something a bit differently - but it is still the same diamond and the same Light.

That which is perfect doesn’t change, Quix.

THAT notion assumes that PERFECTION would not, did not, maybe could not have as HIS design . . . a component of PERFECT CHANGE.

I don't presume to put God in such a tiny box.

It appears that there's a . . . philosophical unwillingness . . . or some such . . . to imagine beyond 4 dimensions, so to speak--vis a vis change. I realize that these are very tricky philosophical issues. And, that we don't have more than a very limited, tiny, finite perspective from which to assume, infer, extrapolate.

A parent will likely tell a child--I will always be your Dad. That will never change. I will unchangeably be your Dad. Yet, many things about my relationship with you as Dad, will change.

There is the narrative--from at least one Heavenly visit--about babies who have died . . . and are in school, in Heaven.

Certainly GROWTH, EXPANSION, CREATIVITY, FLOWERING . . . all such involve change. GLORIOUS CHANGE. There's nothing in Scripture which describes a dead, changeless state as an aspect or encompasing state of PERFECTION.

Yet, God's NATURE DOES NOT, WILL NOT CHANGE. GOD'S QUALITY of being PERFECT IN ALL HE IS AND ALL HE DOES will not change.

That which does not change . . . essentially . . . is considered dead.

GOD is the OPPOSITE, of that. God is VASTLY BEYOND TOO EXPANSIVE AND LARGE for all eternity to be about every creature in Creation sitting in the Lotus position endlessly contemplating God's navel with the same endless loop of the same redundant thoughts--regardless of how many eons the loop would take to recycle.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.