'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."

FK, God doesn't tempt anyone (+James 1:13), but He does allow it (1 Cor 10:13). That's a far cry from Jesus (I imagine the Apostle here use the name to denote His human nature) was led intentionally by God (Holy Spirit), to be tempted! (+Mat 4:1)

Yes, that's right, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Maybe I should have said: "Perhaps part of the reason for GOD ALLOWING the temptation ..." satan did all the tempting, not God.

Which brings me to the another mention of temptation, namely in the Lord's Prayer, "and do not lead us into temptation," and how it doesn't "square" with above references to +James and +Paul.

You're right, they don't appear to square. I agree with you that God does not tempt anyone. But when we take the totality of scripture, including your sources (repeated below), we see that this verse must be interpreted. Jesus cannot contradict His own Holy Book! :) I found Barnes' reconciliation to be reasonably plausible:

"Verse 13 (Matt. 6) [And lead us not into temptation] A petition similar to this is offered by David, Ps 141:4: "Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with the workers of iniquity." God tempts no man. See James 1:13. This phrase, then, must be used in the sense of "permitting." Do not "suffer" us, or "permit" us, to be tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God has such control over the tempter as to save us from his power if we call upon him. The word "temptation," however (see the note at Matt 4:1), means sometimes "trial, affliction," anything that "tests" our virtue. If this be the meaning here, as it may be, then the import of the prayer is, "Do not afflict or try us." It is not wrong to pray that we may be saved from suffering if it be the will of God. See Luke 22:42." (from Barnes' Notes.)

Here is the relevant part of the note to Matt. 4:1, referenced in the quote. I did not consult it when I made my earlier comments, but it looks like I agree with him that there could have been a learning component for us in the story of the temptation:

"[Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit] Led up by the Spirit. Luke says (Luke 4:1) that Jesus was "full of the Holy Spirit;" and it was by his influence, therefore, that he went into the desert to be tempted. It was not done by presumption on the part of Jesus, nor was it for a mere display of his power in resisting temptation; but it was evidently that it might be seen that his holiness was such that he could not be seduced from allegiance to God. When the first Adam was created he was subjected to the temptation of the devil, and he fell and involved the race in ruin: it was not improper that the second Adam-the Redeemer of the race-should be subjected to temptation, in order that it might be seen that there was no power that could alienate him from God; that there was a kind and a degree of holiness which no art or power could estrange from allegiance. (from Barnes' Notes.)

---------------

Otherwise, +Mat 4:1 makes no sense, for neither God tempts man intentionally, nor can God be tempted! And neither would the devil try to tempt God.

It depends on how you define "tempted". I am fine with including temptation that has no chance of success within the definition. I agree with Barnes, and you, that satan had no chance of winning this one. But I disagree that satan didn't try. Why do you think that? I mean, satan is going to show up for the final battle, right? Why would he do that if he believed he was going to lose? satan showed ignorance by doing what he did to get thrown out of Heaven in the first place.

Sounds like I’ve, by His Grace, managed to travel MUCH further toward that goal than you have.

Thats a neat trick of judging something that you really have no idea of, except a substantial arrogance.

Speaking of Scripture, maybe you are familiar with the following:

Romans 12
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

Be very careful of making judgments from a puffed up position.

WHEN you have done more on that score, I MAY entertain such questions more cooperatively.

You have no idea what I have done, so to make that assumption is foolhardy.

Perhaps you’ve read about the plank vs splinter Scripture.

Yes, I'm very familiar with it, are you?

Asking you if you have lived up to the "mandate" you claim Scripture gives(which by the way that Mark passage you cited is a disputed text anyway, the best and oldest texts we have do not include it, it being most likely an addition by a later redactor--but that is another debate entirely), is not what Matthew 7 is addressing. You have made the assertion that all those who follow Christ are mandated to perform greater miracles than Christ did, therefore, your claim is open for testing, which is what I have done.

But to answer your question anyway—because I’ve not been willing to pay the price for that level of anointing.

Why not? You assert that all those who follow Christ are mandated to perform greater miracles than Christ did, yet you do not.

What is this "price" you think has to be paid? Four years at Kenneth Hagin's school for the gullible?

Of all the people God could have chosen to bring the light of the Gospel to men, He looked around and chose Saul, a man who was personally, willfully and delightedly killing Christians!

Indeed, and Saul of Tarsus wanted nothing to do with those of "The Way", except to destroy them. Saul of Tarsus, just as we all, no more asked to be transformed, born again than he or we ask to be born into the world.

Notice who is doing the work in Ezekiel 36, as God promises the new birth of regeneration, and what must happen first before God can be followed and obeyed:

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

That is the passage that Jesus was referring to with Nicodemus, when speaking to Nicodemus about the new birth of water and Spirit. Just as the priests before entering the inner sanctuary of the temple had to be ceremonially cleansed at the laver, so to before entering into the inner sanctuary of the New Temple of Christ and His Kingdom, God cleanses us with Living Water, gives us a new heart and puts His Spirit in us, none of which we ask for, none of which we seek, none of which comes as the result of the working of our own will, for like Saul our natural will is staunchly opposed to God, enemies of God. After that, then notice what follows, God is the cause whereby God does cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Without God's Mercy in those actions in spite of our unwillingness and opposition to God we would all remain dead to God.

So too does Paul echo Ezekiel in Ephesians 2;

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Notice whom Paul says we were following before God cleanses, and performs a heart transplant and putting His Spirit in those whom He chooses:

according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience

Then notice what our state of reality was prior to the Regeneration performed by God while we were obstinately opposed to God;

, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Each and every one of us were "by nature children of wrath". Yet man still wants to arrogantly think that he is the one seeking God and comes to God by the working of his own will.

O proud and arrogant man, child of disobedience and wrath, how dare you think you are the cause of God's Mercy and Grace!

This was not Noah's first tilt, and he knew the effects of alcohol. He knew that drinking too much could cause one to lose control of one's faculties. Further, he knew that nakedness (in this context) was a sin from the story of Adam and Eve. Therefore, I would apply the felony murder rule here

You can read all this into the story. You can also, with Ping-Pong a few posts down, read incest into it. I simply go by the text: Noah is described by doing the natural thing without any sinful intent. He worked, then he drank wine, and feeling tired went to his tent to sleep, and his clothes shifted. A desire to get drunk is not mentioned, a loss of self control even is not mentioned as attributable to wine. The only person blamed is his son. Cain, in contrast, is described as sinning. The plain text favors Noah and disfavors Cain. You try to attach sin to Noah, and I point out that it is not the natural reading, especially since the law of Moses was not in operation.

Also mind you that my point is not necessarily that Noah is sinless, but that the scripture describes him as a sinless, in another contradiction to the absolute reading of Romans 3..

That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not.

The qualifier is "such great faith". It points to the faith specific to the Centurion, that is faith without familiarity with the person of Jesus.

Do you mean to say that God was standing on the sidelines, waiting for man to be "ready" before Christ was sent?

God was busy giving Israel the Law, which promulgated the concept of purity, which in due time culminated in Mary's exceptional purity, per Luke 1:28.

Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace?

It is of course same grace; one of the reasons to pray to Mary is to learn form her how to accept divine grace given us.

Saul of Tarsus wanted nothing to do with those of "The Way", except to destroy them. Saul of Tarsus, just as we all, no more asked to be transformed, born again than he or we ask to be born into the world.

Amen! Great post. Scripture is filled with instruction that clearly gives us the path of our faith -- from God to us. We don't reach up to God. God reached down to us and quickened us by His Spirit. He gave us a new heart, turned our eyes from the darkness to the light, opened our ears to His word, and cleansed us of our sins by the sacrifice of His Son.

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." -- John 15:16

We know that baptized infants who die are saved, because we know that baptism "confers the grace of justification", and "effects the remission of all punishments of sin", and is "valid and licit" for young children. (Those three are all infallible Catholic dogmas.)

No, because we have an authoritative and infallible Magisterium. Calvinists have no authoritative or infallible magisterium

The Calvinistic conception of assurance requires knowing one's election [to glory] status in order to have assurance.

The Catholic conception of assurance does not require knowing one's election [to glory] status.

If you are assured, then wouldn't you know that you are elect? It seems to me Dr. E's position makes more sense.

"Perhaps part of the reason for GOD ALLOWING the temptation ..." satan did all the tempting, not God.

But who created Satan? Is Satan running free of God's control, or is Satan a creature who exists by the will of God alone?

When we struggle to free God of His responsibility in creation, we demote Him to bystander. The world is not God against Satan, thesis vs. antithesis, because that would give Satan power equal to God's power.

So ultimately, as difficult as it is to grasp, God is the first cause of all things.

God planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil smack in the middle of Eden and told two naifs not to eat it. That's pretty tempting.

The point isn't that God doesn't tempt men because the truth is men are tempted every day of the week by a thousand distractions that deny and demean the Triune God. That's life, exactly as God created it.

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Thankfully, Scripture tells us that those who have been "bought with a price" will be able to withstand temptation...

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." -- 1 Corinthians 10:13

He is an amazing Creator. He thought of everything. 8~)

FK to Kosta: "AAaaaarghhhhh! But this is what you do! :) You openly default to whatever the Church says as your "official" position, but in your heart you have honest disagreements on the truth of some scripture."

Joe: "AAaaaaarghhhh! No we don't! WE default to the Church's dogmatic teachings - but it doesn't follow that the Church is monolithic and narrow on all of its teachings. ALL of the Church's teachings are not dogmatice, FK! In our discussion on grace and free will, I (Joe) told you that the Church ALLOWS several stances regarding predestination of the elect and so forth (Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and so forth). I (Joe), as a Catholic, can decide for myself ANY of these stances. The Church is broad in its view on this question! We have discussed this and other things over and over again."

First, in this case, when I said "you" I was actually taking a good natured jab at Kosta only, and not Apostolics in general. :) So, on all those things we have discussed, I do remember and was not painting with a broad brush. While I haven't studied it yet, I have scanned Kosta's response and he appears to say that there are only three points of dogma in all of Orthodoxy. I know for a fact that there are plenty more than that in Catholicism. This is "new" to me, (although it shouldn't be because I knew there have been further councils after the last one that Orthodoxers recognize. I just never put it together before in this way).

Anyway, among the three that Kosta listed was NOT that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Assuming what Kosta said is true (and I do), then -- at the Dogma level -- he is totally off the hook concerning his opinions/beliefs concerning Paul and the Bible in general. I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?

Now, we move down to the doctrine level. My impression is that Kosta is saying that while he is bound to dogma, he is not to doctrine. While he may "defer" to the Church on doctrine "officially", he is still free to hold contrary opinions. This is the heart of the matter I've been trying to get to in this discussion. Here's why I'm interested:

Somewhere recently I read that the Pope (or a very high Church official) made a public statement warning that pro-abortion politicians potentially face excommunication. I didn't think it likely that opposition to abortion was dogmatic, so I figured it must be doctrine. If that's right, then you can understand my confusion on the grounds for excommunication. I know that Kosta would never put himself in any jeopardy on this subject because his faith is strong enough that he just wouldn't "go there". So, are the "practical" grounds for excommunication significantly different between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?

I don’t think there’s anything I can say vis a vis logic; tradition; Scripture etc. which will spell out a 1, 2, 3, 4 step-wise process or structure by which one can fool-proof always discern whether a magicsterical or one’s self or one’s brother is in gross error, any error or not.

Gross error is easier. But many gross spiritual destinations begin innocuously enough.

The anointing is easy to detect for the spiritually mature, discerning and Spirit-daily-re-filled.

But we all see through the glass darkly. A Biblical truth and a daily fact.

I think God designed it such that we AS INDIVIDUALS

REGARDLESS of a healthy magicsterical or not

would HAVE to make ourselves open and vulnerable before Him daily, ongoingly through the day in order to stay on target; focused on His priorities, in step and intimate fellowship with Him. Even a healthy magicstrical cannot ultimately MAKE that happen or even do more than point in a few standard NORMALLY reliable directions.

But God insists on having a heart to heart relationship with all individuals and will quite often test whether the individual is more committed to an organization, a leader, a group, even a good Christian philosophy or WHATEVER ELSE vs GOD HIMSELF—FACE TO FACE, so to speak.

Blessings,

How would I know?

Actually, in my experience,

God increasingly pulls out the stops to impress on a soul that he is wandering further and further away from the core of The Gospel and a RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

Certainly those whom HE LOVES, HE DISCIPLINES.

Those who may have resolutely and stubbornly become satan worshippers for years may well not have Holy Spirit bothering with them any further.

But earnest, genuine believers seeking to any authentic degree to walk with God will have THE HOUND OF HEAVEN pursuing them with increasing ‘disciplines’ until they crack and return to sanity and wholesome spiritual relationship WITH GOD.

Now, certainly some folks just describe the disciplines as tests from satan or whatever . . . but most know in some authentic part of their hearts that God is at work trying to get their attention. The earnest folks set about then to find out precisely what it is that God seems to be getting at.

Harley,

I have as lofty and reverenced an attitude and devotion to the written Word as anyone hereon, imho.

I don’t think you heard a thing I wrote on that score and I doubt I can say it more articulately enough for you to actually hear and understand. But I can say—you clearly missed it.

Certainly God’s Word does not return void. But what I was trying to articulate essentially has nothing to do with that.

Scripture also talks about fitting words in season . . . apples of gold in pitchers of silver . . .

Even Scriptures grabbed and thrown at folks—especially willy nilly in a desperate crisis—will not strike home. Will fail to meet the need and will often help innoculate the desperate folks ATAINST God AND HIS WORD.

Desperate folks NEED TOUCHED AT THEIR POINT OF NEED.

Sometimes Scriptural words can do that. Very often even the most central Biblical words canot do that. It takes “God with skin on” moving in the fullness and power of Holy Spirit—at least in HIs Love to bring The Word made flesh in sufficient tangible form to minister truly and in fact t the desperate needs.

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.