'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/

[kosta50]

The evidence is overwhelming

Prove it then! Prove that no one can not choose evil.

[Blogger]

Kosta. You made a statement. You said what I believed wasn't Calvinism. I quoted Calvin and some Calvinists to prove to you that it was Calvinism. They you complained that I quoted Calvin since I do not follow a man. I will not chase my tail for you. You either want to talk or you don't.

You have articulated a couple of times that what I write is not Calvinism. I have shown you differently. Free will is denied in post-fall man. Not in pre-fall man. If some are saying that nobody was ever free, then they are not following the Scriptural doctrines that were articulated by John Calvin and others Reformers. But you know what, that's okay as long as it is based on Scripture. I believe and John Calvin believed that Adam and Eve had free will to choose to do good. We also believed that when they sinned they destroyed that freedom so that their progeny would always be inclined towards evil. I really don't think my Calvinists brothers and sisters feel differently about that. Saying that God ordained the fall does not deny the free will of the first man. But today, man does not have freedom of will for he has willfully bound himself in chains of sin to where he is not free. He is desirous of anything but God. And truly, Kosta, only in Christ do we have true freedom. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

[kosta50]

Even in normal parlance, when a baby is conceived is that spoken of as a mixture or as a union? The answer is clear

Well, a mix of course. Each haploid carries specific mix of genetic codes, and each fertilized egg results in a unique mixture of genetics material giving rise to a uniuqe person. Union is simply two parts stuck together, still distinctly separate entities.

My example with Adam was to show that God doesn't have to use the "conventional" method of (pro)creating humans, not that Adam was somehow without a genetic code.

but God can somehow take Mary's nature and flesh (or something) and be united, but NOT mixed in the person of Christ

Sure He can, just as God used clay to make Adam. But in this case, the "clay" was human flesh related to david, Abraham and the first Adam and, in extremis, to all of us.

You are stuck on the visible. Christ is also human because He took on human nature, that is – he made Himself a human being without ceasing to be God.

[Alamo-Girl]

What comes to our mind from the flesh are simply impulses, drives, not noetic thoughts, for the the flesh moves by necessity and not by reason.

The Apostle correctly observes that a carnal mindset is something (essentuially, that is as regards to nature) alien, indeed antithecal, to God.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to get “two cents” in the discussion of the “carnal mind” by offering a few perspectives from the Scriptures, Jewish tradition and Science corners.

Scriptures and Jewish tradition speaks of the soul and spirit in four levels as follows:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is what betty boop and I have described as being field-like, existing in all points of space/time.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in the passage: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

I suspect only the first two on the list would be manifest in such a way that science might be able to detect them - the last two are gifts of God.

The “will to live” (nephesh) permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. For that reason, we assert that it is field-like (existing in all points of space/time). It is observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle. It (including decision making) is observed in the simplest of life forms (cell intelligence).

It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) – the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain.

If a field is the medium for this "will to live" - then it may be measurable indirectly by its effects on other fields, such as the electromagnetic field in living organisms. Alternatively or additionally, it may be geometrically related to the semiosis (the language, encoding and decoding) in living creatures, i.e. information theory and molecular biology. Such possibilities are being investigated.

The “self-will” OTOH is in the domain of the ongoing inter-disciplinary studies of consciousness and the mind.

The monist view would be that consciousness (as well as the soul) are merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Epiphenomenons are secondary phenomenons which can cause nothing to happen.

But qualia speaks against such a conclusion. Qualia are the properties of sensory experiences which are epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them and therefore, are also incommunicable. Examples include likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil.

Just my two cents for the discussion...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

To be God, Christ's eternal pre-existence must be preserved. That Mary carried God in her womb I don't believe would be contested here. But Jesus brought his deity with him. It didn't have its origin, source, or anything else in Mary. He was HER God too. He was her Creator.

Mary as Mother of God is imprecise. It is fraught with difficulty (even though I know what the council was getting at and agree with their premise- I disagree with their title for the above mentioned reasons).

Which all begs the question, WHY does the Catholic church venerate, pray to and for all appearances worship the woman, Mary.

And why do men fall to their knees to a likeness of her when Scripture specifically forbids this?

I think an excellent answer lies in Michael Carroll's book, "The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins."

[D-fendr]

Speaking of St. James - from todays Liturgy:

James 1:19 - 26
Be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to rouse your temper; God’s righteousness is never served by man’s anger. Nobody must imagine that he is religious while he still goes on deceiving himself and not keeping control over his tongue; anyone who does this has the wrong idea of religion.

Thought I should try to remember this one particularly...

[Forest Keeper]

That rule [referencing Kolo's "The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies"] is in everyone, no matter how uniquely his theological position is, claims to speak direct from the Holy Ghost. Witness Blogger on this thread. Every Protestant thinks he is a pope.

If the desire to rule is in everyone (and I am fine with that), and if Kolo is right that it is the mother of all heresies, then it is also in your leaders, not just the Protestants. Your argument is only based on your belief that your leaders are "super-graced" and are above seeking power, perhaps at a group level. However, you have a single pope. He absolutely claims to speak for the Holy Spirit ex cathedra. Does the pope get a special exemption from the "everyone" you speak of above just as Mary eludes "all" in Romans 3?

I have witnessed Blogger on this thread, and Blogger certainly fancies no personal papacy. We don't need a pope. It is fine if you think you do, but you can't transfer your belief of the "need" to us. At best, the "equivalent" of our "pope" would be the scriptures themselves.

[D-fendr]

Thanks lady. That is very interesting.

Appreciate you stopping by and improvin' the thread..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I have shown you differently. Free will is denied in post-fall man. Not in pre-fall man. If some are saying that nobody was ever free, then they are not following the Scriptural doctrines that were articulated by John Calvin and others Reformers. But you know what, that's okay as long as it is based on Scripture. I believe and John Calvin believed that Adam and Eve had free will to choose to do good. We also believed that when they sinned they destroyed that freedom so that their progeny would always be inclined towards evil. I really don't think my Calvinists brothers and sisters feel differently about that. Saying that God ordained the fall does not deny the free will of the first man. But today, man does not have freedom of will for he has willfully bound himself in chains of sin to where he is not free. He is desirous of anything but God. And truly, Kosta, only in Christ do we have true freedom. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

Amen.

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." -- Romans 5:17

CALVIN'S COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 3

"1. Now the serpent was more subtil In this chapter, Moses explains, that man, after he had been deceived by Satan revolted from his Maker, became entirely changed and so degenerate, that the image of God, in which he had been formed, was obliterated. He then declares, that the whole world, which had been created for the sake of man, fell together with him from its primary original; and that in this ways much of its native excellence was destroyed...

We must now enter on that question by which vain and inconstant minds are greatly agitated; namely, Why God permitted Adam to be tempted, seeing that the sad result was by no means hidden from him? That He now relaxes Satan’s reins, to allow him to tempt us to sin, we ascribe to judgment and to vengeance, in consequence of man’s alienation from himself; but there was not the same reason for doing so when human nature was yet pure and upright. God, therefore, permitted Satan to tempt man, who was conformed to His own image, and not yet implicated in any crime, having, moreover, on this occasion, allowed Satan the use of an animal which otherwise would never have obeyed him; and what else was this, than to arm an enemy for the destruction of man? This seems to have been the ground on which the Manichaeans maintained the existence of two principles. Therefore, they have imagined that Satan, not being in subjection to God, laid snares for man in opposition to the divine will, and was superior not to man only, but also to God himself. Thus, for the sake of avoiding what they dreaded as an absurdity, they have fallen into execrable prodigies of error; such as, that there are two Gods, and not one sole Creator of the world, and that the first God has been overcome by his antagonist. All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning. Whether he sinned by necessity, or by contingency, is another question; respecting which see the Institution, and the treatise on Predestination..."

[Forest Keeper]

Yes and 7.

Thanks. I'll take 7 as the number.

[Forest Keeper]

[FK to Kosta:] "I thought you were in agreement with the Roman Catholics that the Holy Spirit abandons any body in a state of "major" (mortal) sin before the next confession, and then re-enters the body upon the completion of penance."

---

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. (Hebrews 13:5 KJV)

Amen, Marlowe. The Holy Spirit is not a fair weather fan. He doesn't quit when the times get tough and we are struggling. That's when it is most important that He IS there for us. I thank God that the reason the Spirit decided to indwell me permanently is NOT because of my inner goodness or my deeds. On that basis, and considering my skills as a landlord, I wouldn't blame the Spirit for leaving me instantly. Fortunately for us all, God promises that it doesn't work like that, as you so aptly pointed out.

[D-fendr]

the reason the Spirit decided to indwell me permanently is NOT…

In your view, what is the reason?

[Forest Keeper]

If God left man's choice of salvation up to him, then you could say that God was capricious.

Excellent point, Harley. The results would go in every possible direction. Glory be to God that instead His will was certain from the foundations, and that His will is being carried out in full to this day and beyond.

[DungeonMaster]

Words mean things. God has no Mother. The bible said that the Son of God was born of a virgin. It doesn't say that God has a mother.

[bornacatholic]

I understand your reticence. Send them to us, we'll burn 'em, for ya :)

[Blogger]

Peter included the epistles of Paul as Scripture and unless we want to say that the gospels and the other apostolic works in Scripture aren't Scripture- there is internal evidence that nails the canon down pretty well. The only books without apostolic origin would be Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James and Jude. Mark was a coworker with Peter and travelled with Paul. Luke was a friend of Paul. The writer of Hebrews is disputed. Some say Paul. Some say Apollos. We just don't know where that one came from for sure. And James and Jude were Christ's brothers. Frankly, any proclamations that the church made after 400 should be looked at carefully. Once Rome (i.e., the Roman Emperor) got involved with the church, one sees a drift away from Scriptural tenets.

[bornacatholic]

One look at this saint would tell what he would do, don't you think?

*That is all that Matthew 25 is about, but, that sola scriptura thingy is forgotten

[blue-duncan]

"Only if they are not among the living on earth,"

But those to whom Jesus was speaking were alive and on earth at the time. He didn't say "you will be blessed".

[bornacatholic]

Kornthal Church

"Valley of Grain"

Let's preserve and maintain what our forefathers have left us.

The church was built by Protestant families of the Lutheran faith who immigrated from Austria to this country in the year 1852 - 1853. Landing at New Orleans these immigrants came up the Mississippi by flatboat to a spot called Willard's Landing near the present town of Ware. Traveling a few miles eastward they settled in a fertile valley which they called Kornthal, meaning "valley of grain". The community was never incorporated s a village, but at one time consisted of a church, a church school and parsonage a box factory, a grist mill, a county store and a distillery. However the present parsonage is not the original one.

The planning of the church was begun soon after settlement was made and typical Austrian Bestial (house of prayer) design was used. Austria was then under Catholic domination and Protestant churches were not allowed to have spires, nor were they permitted to have doors opening on the street. It was a plain frame oblong structure with side doors and no steeple, 30 x 50 feet in size. The Front entrance, the steeple and bell tower were added in 1889.

The interior of the church is impressive because of its unique designing and the fine quality of its workmanship. The pews were hand made of native yellow poplar, complete with kneeling racks. Balconies were constructed the full length of the building on both sides. The high pulpit placed the minister on the level of the balconies.

*And the protestants went to their services with their Bibles - and they also had Bibles in the pews for those who forgot them - and they knelt and worshipped their Bibles, right?

[Forest Keeper]

The difference, of course, being that Luther's comment can lead to damnation while +Athanasius' states theosis, FK.

Certainly both comments have been subject to wild misinterpretations throughout the ages. Thankfully, we both know that Luther was not advocating sin, and +Athanasius was not teaching that we can be one in essence with God.

[+Gregory Palamas:] ... It is through grace that `the entire Divinity comes to dwell in fullness in those deemed worth,' and all the saints in their entire being dwell in God, receiving God in His wholeness, and gaining no other reward for their ascent to Him than "God Himself."

Thank you for all the quotes. What does Palamas mean by "in those deemed worth"? Also, what is his use of the word "saints" here?