'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/

[.30Carbine]

Quix asked for a response, so here I am! (;

The Holy Spirit "forces Himself on men" about as much as a dearly loved husband "forces himself" upon his very willing and desirous (eager, even!) wife. Love is the most powerful force in the universe, for God is Love and His Will is Perfect, Life-Giving. Love does not "force itself" ever. Love simply is, and by its very nature, simply by being, attracts the beloved.

There is so much more to say, but I'd have to quote the entire Bible, and that would take up so much bandwidth...

[.30Carbine]

I view so much of life as a miracle that it's difficult to say where non-miracles leave off and miracles begin.

I agree. Thank you for this testimony!

[Quix]

Wonderously and anointedly put. Thanks.

= =

The Holy Spirit “forces Himself on men” about as much as a dearly loved husband “forces himself” upon his very willing and desirous (eager, even!) wife. Love is the most powerful force in the universe, for God is Love and His Will is Perfect, Life-Giving. Love does not “force itself” ever. Love simply is, and by its very nature, simply by being, attracts the beloved.

[.30Carbine]

God certainly forced Himself on Paul, striking him blind in the process so he could see.

I like you. I've been reading your "find in forum" and would like to offer my "Welcome to FR!" I would also like to say that I do not see Paul's Damascus Road experience as you do. I would not say that Jesus Christ "forced" Himself upon Paul. I would say that Jesus revealed Himself in full majesty to Paul there; that on this road Paul encountered the Living Christ - and over the next 3 days Paul came to terms with this encounter. The rest of Paul's life from that day forward was the living out of this new relationship to God the Father through the Son by the Spirit - God and Paul hand in hand, heart to heart, united in purpose and in power, amen.

[.30Carbine]

You say “we don’t need miracles,” but the whole of your well-worded post proves that we do! (;

[adiaireton8]

Imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the Catholic Church is what she says she is, i.e. the Church that Christ Himself founded upon Peter 2000 years ago, that the gates of hell have not prevailed against her, that she remains the "pillar and bulwark of truth", that all other 'denominations' are schisms from her, that she retains the magisterial authority passed down from the Apostles through Apostolic succession, and that it is still true that those who listen to her Magisterium listen to Christ, and those who reject her Magisterium reject Christ (Luke 10:16).

If that were true, how would you know it? How would your experience be any different than it is now?

How would a heretic of the first four centuries, going by 'smell' and spiritual experience, have been able to determine "I am a heretic!"?

-A8

[.30Carbine]

The miracles are already all around us - this DAY is a miracle of Grace. What is required are eyes to see them with. Jesus Christ opens the eyes of the blind, daily. Amen, and thank You, Jesus!

[HarleyD]

Words—even Scriptural words JUST DO NOT CUT IT

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

On the contrary, the word of God does "cut it".

[HarleyD]

But I do understand your insistence on the contemporary occurrence of miracles. Maybe it's just semantics. I view so much of life as a miracle that it's difficult to say where non-miracles leave off and miracles begin.

God can and does work miracles in this world. I have not said otherwise. But He doesn't do it on Sunday from 10-12 on channel 62. It's not because we have great faith or we have a "special need" (as if others don't). It is based upon His sovereign will to effect His divine plan.

People insists on miracles from God, as if it's something that is due us or that we need some external proof that God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives. I haven't yet heard an explanation as to why we need miracles.

[HarleyD]

If only God knows whether Calvinists have reprobate children, then Calvinists can have no assurance that their children are elect. But if Calvinists can have assurance that their children are elect, then they must know that their children are not reprobate.

What you are discussing is a finer, and more specific, point of Calvinism; one held by the Presbyterians and not by the Reformed Baptists. I don't subscribe to infant baptism as I believe it to be a misguided doctrine of the Catholic Church.

If I understand the argument from the Presbyterians correctly, while they take a slightly different bent on the reason to baptize infants, it's not too much different than the Catholics. That is why I cannot follow your argument. If I understand the Catholic position, the reason they baptize infants is to bring them inside the Church while the Presbyterians bring them into the covenant. Infants who are baptized in the Church and die are assured of going to heaven, isn't that the teaching? Isn't the Presbyterian and the Church's views, while coming at it with different reasoning, one in the same? Catholics can't have any more assurance that the children they baptize are not reprobates any more then Presbyterians.

At the risk of treating this serious matter in a seemingly cavalier way, Reform Baptists believe immersion is a sign of our inward regeneration. It's an after-the-fact type ordinance rather than a forward looking ordinance. That doesn't mean that reprobates will not be baptized; it just means that it illustrates our rebrith and we're following in a command of Christ.

Our assurance of salvation rest upon faith in Christ; faith that God imparts to us. Children are saved in exactly the same manner and it depends upon the grace of God, not the will of man. Since faith is the substance of things not seen, we don't know who has faith and who doesn't, now do we? If we can't tell who's a false prophet, what makes us think we can tell a reprobate child from an elect child? Baptists generally will dedicate children but they will not baptize them until later, and then only after they undergo a series of questions and, sometimes classes. It is taken rather seriously.

While Calvin was a brilliant man of God, he was wrong on this point. Well, nobody's perfect. The Catholic Church is equally wrong but Calvin is a bit more excusable.

[adiaireton8]

Catholics can't have any more assurance that the children they baptize are not reprobates any more then Presbyterians.

The relevant difference is that Catholics do not claim to know the reprobate/election [to glory] status of anyone [including infants] while they are on this earth. Our grounds for assurance do not include knowing the status of our election [for glory]. The Calvinist's ground for assurance, by contrast, requires knowing the status of one's election [for glory]. And that is what creates this dilemma (that I have pointed out to Dr. E.) for infant baptizing Calvinists, but not for Catholics.

-A8

[Mad Dawg]

I've been told I smell before ... heh heh heh

Others . . . may have degrees piled as high as the horse biscuits around them . . . and usually their convictions about their own flawlessness . . . their convictions about their own grandeur are . . . as high and mighty as their images of themselves . . .

Hey, listen: I used to be humble, then I thought, "What's the point? Everybody can see how great I am, no use pretending otherwise ..."

(In my case it's sheep biscuits.)
(Thank you for the kind and affirming words. Those who throw themselves abjectly on the mercy of the Lord occasionally lift their haeds from the dust and look right or left and recognize brothers and sisters)

I think A8 has done a simply wonderful job, awesome in his patience, of stating not only what I believe (which he obviously gets way better than I do) but of sticking with the argument.

FK is an equally awesomely persistent, level-headed, and charitable proponent of his abominable heresies carefully and -- what's more to the purpose -- piously examined views. (Only kidding about the abominable part.)

Random Thoughts:
- I think a certain amount of what is going to look like "blind faith" is going to happen. I am currently thinking a lot about theological language; about how God is the ground and ledger mark and we are the indeterminate - and yet we must use what we scarcely know about ourselves to make statements, all of them doomed to perilous inadequacy, about God. -- And how Jesus, the Word, is again and always the great Mediator. In this problem, the union of divine and human natures in one person means also that He is fixed AND indeterminate - more enduring than those evanescent mountains we humorously call "everlasting", and yet He floats untethered, appearing here as an infant, there as a boy, over there as a man, then corpse, then a risen Lord. So somehow in Him only are there adequate words about the Word, and about Him who spoke it and Him who hears it in our hearts.

Now, since that is where my mind is going, while another part of me is working on how law enforcement officers respond to stress and how Christians can minister to them, and another part is, well, trying to pay the bills, -- and then there's the depresssion and healing the outrages to my feeties and, well, I'm just going to have to leave SOME stuff to others.

And here I find myself in a group which claims enough miracles, some quite recent, to keep you happy, and which, seems to me eagerly happy to believe and rejoice in the most amazing promises of Scripture.

We are described as hag-ridden, perpetually gloomy, harrowed by guilt and penances. But the reality just doesn't match the description.

And acquiescence to the Magisterium isn't as knee-jerk as you might think. An active inquisitive obedience (and I take seriously the root of that word as meaning "intense listening") is not at all numbly docile. Dancers turn to Zion to find all the best steps (Psalm 87, I think) and no one calls them docile or blind.

[Marysecretary]

Amen, Quix. I sent you a couple of e-mails, not freepmails. Mxxx

[Marysecretary]

I’m working on heart issues right now. I do believe once these heart issues are taken care of in the spiritual, my physical heart will be healed. I remember saying, more than once, and illustrated it by stabbing at my heart with my hand, that I felt like there were stab wounds in my heart. I may just have put a word curse on that area, so now I’m praying about that and repenting of those words that could be part of what’s going on. The physical most always has a spiritual component.

[Forest Keeper]

Really? Hmmm. So if I was to show you that the early Christians thought that the Eucharist was Christ Himself, whom they worshiped, you'd become a Catholic?

All I said was that I didn't know of any SCRIPTURE supporting Paul partaking. I have no doubt that you can show me Tradition that it was later practiced by some/many Christians.

Christ offers His life to us sacramentally in the Eucharist. You can't get much more intimate than that. Is there a better way that Christ can abide within us than the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Why would Christ want to keep offering His life over and over? Wasn't once enough? To me it just diminishes the accomplishment. BTW, is this the thought behind the crucifix, vs. the empty cross that we use?

I wouldn't place all my bets on a contorted understanding of Paul alone, knowing that this can lead to destruction - according to the Word of God.

I agree, and we don't. In addition, we view all scripture as equally inspired and true.

How would making God visible diminish intimacy? Are you closer to your wife when you are thinking about her, or when you are in her visible presence???

It is diminished because one must go THROUGH a man. The idea is that God cannot be made visible (true or not) UNLESS one submits himself to another man. If I had to go through another man to get to my wife, believe me, there would be no intimacy there. :) In my personal relationship with my wife I can go to her anytime I want, 24/7. THAT is the kind of personal relationship we teach that we are to have with God. No middlemen.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

adiaireton8 to Quix: What makes you think you are so much smarter and "in tune with the Spirit" than all the heretics of the first four centuries?

My comment: What we (any of us) think doesn't matter. Only God matters. His name, His will, His kingdom. Our challenge is to walk in His Light and not wander off into the darkness of our vain imaginings.

adiaireton8 reply: If it didn't matter what any of us think, then there would be no such thing as "damnable heresies".

In my reply and as I understood your original usage of it, the word “think” means “judge” as in “I think you are smart.” I was not using the word in the meaning of “mental reasoning” or “belief” as in “I think Mary is co-redemptrix.” Though certainly the two usages overlap.

Again I assert that only God truly matters. He is the First Cause and the Final Cause, the Alpha and the Omega. He alone sits on the Great White Throne and judges the hearts and intents of men. No matter whether we believe Him directly or through the counsel of trusted religious leader(s) – in the end, He alone is the judge – and everything that fails His judgment will not continue into the new heaven and the new earth:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. – Hebrews 4:12

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:48

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. – Matt 25:31-33

And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Rev 19:13

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. – Rev 20:11-15

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. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. – Rev 21:5-8

Your quote from Galatians 5 is most excellent. Below is the passage in context with emphasis on what I assert is the key to judging ourselves, whether we are walking in His Light or whether we have wandered off into the darkness of our own vain imaginings (e.g. heresies, idolatry):

[This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. – Galatians 5:16-23

In sum, I assert we should be devoted to God above all else (Matt 22:37-38) and we ought to continually weigh our own thoughts, words and deeds against the above fruits of the Spirit, to know whether we are walking in the Spirit or the flesh (Romans 8.)

[kosta50]

Dear .30Carbine, thank you so much. I couldn't play the son because I don't have the player. If you can, send me the lyrics as I don't usually download players. I trust that the last words are especially important. If you wish you can freepmail them to me.

Yes, God is love, and love only gives. Love doesn't need or ask. God does not return evil for evil; that is human "justice." Divine justice is to shower us with opportunities to come to Him despite our evil ways.

This love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit Alone (Romans 5:5), and where love is, there is God (1 John 4:16)

If you can't find love in something, it's not from God.

[adiaireton8]

Alamo-Girl,

Of course I agree that God's judgment is the one that ultimately matters. But the fact that God's judgment is the one that ultimately matters does not mean that we should not judge ourselves (I mean our own individual self). I think you agree with me on that point at least.

So the fact that God's judgment about whether someone is a heretic is the one that ultimately matters, does not tell us *now* whether any particular person is a heretic, or whether any particular theological belief is heresy. And yet it is extremely important for us to know whether what we are believing is heretical or not, since as I pointed out, at least some heresies are "damnable".

We often never take the time to consider whether or not our present position is heretical. Most people I talk to have never taken the time to consider this. They assume that their present position is correct, and that those who disagree with them are wrong. And they say that God will sort it all out at the Final Judgment. But that is what the heretics of the first four centuries said as well, and that is how they thought. And yet they were seriously mistaken, being themselves ensnared in those "damnable heresies".

Strangely enough, it is a quirk of [fallen] human nature that always tends to think that error belongs to "the other guy". We don't find it surprising that there were so many heresies in the first four centuries. But we seem to think that 21st cenutry man has quite outgrown heresies. Sure we acknowledge that there are liberals who deny the deity of Christ, etc. But do we really think that there are heresies all around today? Generally not. Heresies were for back then, when all those people couldn't seem to get the truth right. But we're past all that. Surely, at the very least, *I* am not a heretic. Why, the thought has never even crossed my mind, and if it did, I would dismiss it in a heartbeat as absurd.

But that is the most dangerous position to be in, a kind of false security that prevents one from reflecting on the very possibility that one is grossly mistaken. That is why it is an important exercise to consider whether one might be wrong. And one way to do that is to look at the whole situation from another point of view, a point of view one presently does not hold. (Of course that may require a little study in order to understand the other point of view.) So my question to Quix was an attempt to prompt that sort of mental exercise. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Christ founded, and its Magisterium the true ecclesial authority, how would Quix know that? Would his subjective experiences feel or smell any different than his present subjective feelings and smells?

If not, then he can't be so confident in dismissing the authenticity and authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

-A8

[TomSmedley]

Until we are reunited with our bodies, we will not be in our created natural state.

Let me cite C. S. Lewis on this question: "A two-legged horse is maimed. A two-legged man isn't." God's willingness to take upon Himself human flesh, rather than an angelic hologram, indicates that the final resurrection is something to anticipate with joy.

[HarleyD]

The relevant difference is that Catholics do not claim to know the reprobate/election [to glory] status of anyone [including infants] while they are on this earth.

You claim to know the status of them after they have died. I don't see much of a difference.

The Calvinist's ground for assurance, by contrast, requires knowing the status of one's election [for glory].

If that is what you believe, you are very much mistaken. Calvinists, to my knowledge, do not claim to know the status of anyone except themselves, and rightfully so. Paul states that we are to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Well, if you examine yourself, then don't you know whether you are in the faith?

In regards to baptism and its relationship with salvation, the Westminster Confession states:

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. - Westminster Confession

According to the Westminster Confession, you cannot suppose that just because someone (including infants) is baptized they are saved. We rely upon God's grace and mercy. I can't speak for the Presbyterians because I'm not that familiar with their belief on infant baptism. I assume with the limited reading I have done on this matter, and in accordance with the WC, they rely upon God’s grace for the election of their children.

Catholics have a similar belief, those who are baptized and die go to heaven. However, as we see above, while the WC is uncertain over the fate of someone who is baptized, the Church positively states that children are ushered into the Church. You stated that "Catholics do not claim to know the reprobate/election [to glory] status of anyone [including infants] while they are on this earth." Yet baptism is declared the door the Church. Here is what the Catholic encyclopedia states:

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. [sic: sounds Presbyterian to me] It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

The tradition of Christian antiquity as to the necessity of infant baptism is clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this subject already, in dealing with the necessity of baptism. A few, therefore, will suffice here. ...

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, [sic: No, God does not wish all men to be saved] He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another." - Catholic Encyclopedia

I would call your attention to the last paragraph. Infants, by the Catholic Church, are looked at as receiving faith through receiving the sacrament of their parents. If the parents where to walk away from the alter 3 minutes later and asked if they felt their baby was going to heaven, what would be the Catholic response? In fact, the Catholic Church is stating these infants will go to heaven. Contrast this with the WC which states that it is uncertain as to the status of someone who is baptized.

You can hardly bash Dr. E over the head when your Church holds a more radical view. The Westminster Confession states the baptized infants future is uncertain (although we trust God). Conversely, the state of baptized infants for the Church is that they are saved as long as they have been baptized into the Church.