'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/

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "This council declares that if anyone disagrees with it, they are damned."

Incorrect. What are you going to do next? I suppose we'll get the usual false line on "anathema" right?

Anathema had more than one meaning in the Church. In the NT it meant accursed. In the canons it meant cut off. A person was excommunicated when anathematized.

Also, what EXACTLY are you carping about in the canons of Trent. Be specific.

[vladimir998]

Again, from Dave Armstrong:

Doctrinal Summary
(of every Chapter and Canon on Justification from Trent)

1. Man cannot justify himself (which includes works): contra Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism: Decree on Justification: chapter 5; Canons 1, 2, 3 on Justification.

2. Justification is by Grace Alone: Decree on Justification: chapter 8; Canon 10.

3. Initial justification by Grace Alone may be increased through mortification, observing God's commandments, and works (see James 2:24): Decree on Justification: chapters 7,10, 11.

4. Justification by Faith Alone is false: Decree on Justification: chapter 11; Canons 9, 29.

5. Good works and merit proceed wholly from the grace of God through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf (not from ourselves). They are necessary but they do not earn salvation, which
is by grace alone: Decree on Justification: chapter 16; Canons 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 32, 33.

6. Man must cooperate with God's grace in order to receive an increase in justification: Canons 4, 22.

7. Good works done in God's grace really are good, and not evil because of our fallen nature, and they deserve a reward (not salvation, but recompense): Canons 6, 7, 25, 31.

8. Extrinsic, imputed, merely external or declared justification is false: Canon 11.

9. "Faith in one's own faith" or "assurance of salvation" is false: Decree on Justification: Chapters 9, 12; Canons 12, 13, 14, 15.

10. Men can fall away from grace (but not faith) and justification, through mortal sin, and must persevere: Decree on Justification: Chapters 11, 13, 15; Canons 16, 17, 23, 27, 28.

11. Temporal punishment for sin in this world and the next (purgatory) is necessary for most people: Canon 30.

12. Men are fallen (original sin) and are by nature children of wrath, and cannot be saved by the law: Decree on Justification: Chapter 1.

13. Man has a free will: adversely affected and limited by the fall, but not extinguished: Decree on Justification: Chapter 1.

14. Jesus Christ is the propitiator, through His blood, for the sins of the whole human race (universal atonement): Decree on Justification: Chapter 2.

15. Being born again and regenerated is necessary for grace, justification, redemption, and reception of the benefits of Christ's death (justification through Christ): Decree on Justification:
Chapters 3, 4.

16. Adults can and must be disposed by God's grace to accept God's graces for justification, repent, do penance, and be baptized: Decree on Justification: Chapters 6, 7.

17. Justification and sanctification are joined together, caused by Jesus Christ's Passion on the Cross and God's grace, and accepted freely by man. Faith, hope, and charity are also infused
in this justification: Decree on Justification: Chapter 7.

18. Those who fall away from following the Lord and from grace can be restored through the sacrament of penance: Decree on Justification: Chapter 14.

19. The fear of hell is not a sin: Canon 8.

20. One must obey Jesus Christ as well as trust Him: Canon 21.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/12/council-of-trent-canons-on.html

[Forest Keeper]

There is no scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. They are pure speculation from centuries later.

Right. By "positive" evidence I meant scriptural evidence amounting to "yes, the Bible supports that here...". On issues like these, all I ever get, at best, is "Well, the Bible doesn't prohibit it". Of course, we would even disagree with that. :)

[Blogger]

Do no PRESUME to tell me what I do or do not know about Protestant history sir. I have studied it and have taught it in college and have two degrees in it. As Luther taught Paul's letters he grew in understanding of justification.

I quoted from your own Catholic encyclopedia about Leo X. You disagree with your own historians. Saying he wasn't a cad doesn't make it so. He was embarassment and even New Advent admits it.

Tetzel's words were taken from the internet, but have been read many times before. He worked under the direction of the Papacy. He went further than even the papacy wanted him to in his proclamations to wring money from peasant hands and got himself in trouble.

Luther's cry for reformation is NOT irrelevant. You said he was an instant rebel. I illustrated how he wasn't. You don't give a flip what anyone actually says but just want to argue. This makes this conversation rather boring.

The audience with the church was not before the Pope but representatives of the Church at Worms (unless you don't consider one representing an Archbishop to be one representing the church) and the Emperor. There was also a Papal Nuncio present. Luther looked at it as an opportunity to explain things but would not be allowed to do so the way he wanted to.

Incorrect. He translated, if it can be said he really did that either, the NT in the early 1520's. The OT was only done years later.

The New Testament is Bible too. Keep straining at that gnat. Maybe you'll get him.

"The epiphany that I spoke of did occur at this time period where you see Luther's understanding of Scripture growing and a further transformation of his theology occuring. It was here that he truly understood Sola Gratia as never before: ...It was also around this period of time, maybe a little earlier, that the break with Rome, initiated BY ROME, would become permanent."

You're nuts if you think the whole Church BROKE FROM ONE MAN. He broke off from the Church when he lied about his obedience, obstinantly held to his heresy and spread it.
And our conversation is over. You are a hate-filled individual and I have no further comment for you.

[xzins]

The bible does not prohibit putting milk in a refrigerator, either. :>)

There's no end of things that are NOT mentioned.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The church is made up of individual believers...Paul does not say that the truth, the gospel, or the Word are mediated, but he does say that the individual is to put them on themselves and stand fast in them."

Well surprise, this Catholic's going to agree with you--- in part, that is. Every Baptized person is a member of the Church in some way.. the Catholic Church says y'all are certainly, but imperfectly, Catholic. (Here I duck under a pelting Protestant rain of keyboards, monitors, mousepads, coffee cups...)

But the Church isn't an amorphous thing, a glob with no inner plan or design. The Church is the Body of Christ, and hence the Church has cells, tissues, organs, systems, all joined together in one organism (Christ) and all working together. And we do not receive the Holy Spirit merely as individuals, but as members (differentiated, yet united) of the Body of Christ.

The "embryonic" beginnings of this structure can be seen in the way Jesus spent some time with the thousands, the "many," the "crowd,"; and spent more time with the 70 disciples; and spent time giving special instructions and training to the Twelve; and shared some of the really special experiences and teachings with just Peter, James and John, His main men, His inner circle.

This hierarchical structure developed in the early post-Resurrection period into a coordinated effort with deacons, elders, and bishops, and continued to grow rapidly and to develop and refine its structures, just as an embryo, from very rudimentary beginnings, develops its own organs and systems.

This has gone on continuously and without a break, from then til now.

One of the important things about this reality of the Body of Christ is that we really do experience our life, not as a pondful of single-cell organisms, but as a unified Body differentiated as to its functions. As St. Paul says, we're not all hands; we're not all feet; we're not all ears.

And, in the verses immediately after Paul's exposition on the Church as Mystical Body, he says this:

(1 Corinthians 12:28-30) And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?

Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

No. We're notr each a self-sufficient protoplankton. We are joined to each other, and serve by having different functions.

To use another analogy: compare a billion billion single-cell plankton floating in the ocean, with a billion-billion cell Blue Whale. The Church is more like the whale.

(All analogies are imperfect, but this one swims...)

BTW, blue-duncan, I love your persistent, energetic, and thoughtful participation in these discussions. Your posts ar always challenging and rewarding.

(Kolokotronis, you already know I love you!)

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Do no PRESUME to tell me what I do or do not know about Protestant history sir. I have studied it and have taught it in college and have two degrees in it. As Luther taught Paul's letters he grew in understanding of justification."

You made errors in your presentation of Luther's development. Deal with it.

"I quoted from your own Catholic encyclopedia about Leo X."

Yes, you did. It also did not say what you implied it did.

"You disagree with your own historians. Saying he wasn't a cad doesn't make it so. He was embarassment and even New Advent admits it."

Being an embarrassment does not mean he ordered or authorized the sale of indulgences. Can you find a document that says Leo X actually did so? No, because there is no such document and never has been. There are several docs. from him showing he wanted indulgences preached, but that does not mean "indulgences sold".

"Tetzel's words were taken from the internet, but have been read many times before. He worked under the direction of the Papacy."

What document do you have showing that the papacy authorized him to SELL indulgences - an act prohibited by canon law and directly contradicted by the instructional letter of Archbishop Albrecht? You have nothing.

"He went further than even the papacy wanted him to in his proclamations to wring money from peasant hands and got himself in trouble."

No money was wrung from anyone. Any money given was GIVEN. Donations. Also, as made clear by Albrecht's letter, those who had nothing to donate still received the indulgence. And you are proving my case for me: if Tetzel was going further than the papacy ever wanted him to on indulgences then that who indicate he was perfectly capable of going further in the actual handling of indulgences then the papacy wanted.

"Luther's cry for reformation is NOT irrelevant. You said he was an instant rebel."

I said he was a rebel. I never used the word "instant". Criticize what I say please and don't make up what I didn't say and claim those words are mine. It seems we have plenty to argue about already. Let's stick to what is said and not make uo things, okay? I don't do it, and I expect you to do that as well.

"I illustrated how he wasn't. You don't give a flip what anyone actually says but just want to argue. This makes this conversation rather boring."

You posted a hagiographic life of Luther that was less than historical on some points.

"The audience with the church was not before the Pope but representatives of the Church at Worms (unless you don't consider one representing an Archbishop to be one representing the church) and the Emperor."

Worms was not an audience before the Church. Choose your words with care. If you choose your words with care you will always be understood and more likely to be correct.

"There was also a Papal Nuncio present. Luther looked at it as an opportunity to explain things but would not be allowed to do so the way he wanted to."

Oh, poor rebel baby, Luther. Luther didn't get his way at an imperial diet? Imagine that. The hubris of the man was amazing!

"The New Testament is Bible too. Keep straining at that gnat. Maybe you'll get him."

He got himself. I think he knew it too.

"And our conversation is over. You are a hate-filled individual and I have no further comment for you."

You bet that you had no further comment for me! That was apparent from the beginning! Thanks for proving my point.

[Blogger]

Have a nice evening vladimir. I meant it when I said the conversation is over.

[P-Marlowe]

A Most Excellent Post, Blogger.

[Blogger]

Thank you sir! If you get a chance to read the entire letter by Luther, it is so vintage Luther. It is hilarious! Yet, when one sees what he is actually saying and his reasoning for adding Sola is rather clear as well.

[Mad Dawg]

Gimme a link then!

As a Calflick I have to ashamedly admit that I think Calvin is sometimes hysterical. These thoelogical guys make the Religioin Forum look tame and unimaginative in our insults and invective.

[Blogger]

I think it may be a European thing. :) I mean, watch the house of commons and how polite and yet wickedly brutal they can be to one another. "May the right honorable gentleman go impale himself!" :)

Anyway, hare's yer link Mr. Calflick! Enjoy! Again, vintage Luther.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0191/_P2.HTM

[kosta50]

The fall was understood and allowed and perfectly within God's sovereignty but Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin because God gave them free will

That is orthodox, not Calvinist. Calvinism denies free will. If they chose to sin (I agree), then Mary could have chosen not to sin as well.

And how dare you say God tempts man to sin

"And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

Indeed, how dare we say to God not to lead us into temptation?

[Blogger]

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

[D-fendr]

The Jews and Their Lies (1543)

[kosta50]

both tradition and Magisteriam rely on man's reason,

That's how we understand things, BD, by reason (that's not how we know things, but that's how we understand them).

Please don't tell me that you don't rely on reason. And please don't tell me that the Holy Spirit guides you, because I will ask you to prove it.

Or should we just take your word for it?

[Blogger]

Luther in one of his NOT finer moments. Very medieval of him considering the Jews were kicked out of just about every (Catholic) nation prior to this time. England, Spain, France - gee, why not Germany.

Not a moment to be proud of Martin Luther. But as I have stated before, ALL of the reformers were flawed as are we.

[Forest Keeper]

Isn't this the position we have been maintaining concerning Mary being the mother of Jesus' human nature that was taken on at the incarnation?

Yes, absolutely. I fully agree with all three of your statements. From having read most of the rest of the conversation, for clarity's sake, I would only add that our side would also say that even in Mary's womb, the baby was fully God and fully man. Sometimes, it seems that we need magic words to say that. :)

[D-fendr]

"Why not Germany?"

Famous last words...

[D-fendr]

Don't get me too wrong. Anti-semitism was rife in Europe and Asia.

However this strain proved particularly virulent.