'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/

[P-Marlowe]

Please, please, don't forget the Hawaiian shirts for us holy, humble and deeply spiritual, 40 Dayers (KJV only).

Let us not forget that there are Pharisaical Hawaiian Shirt snobs as well.

I'm holier than him because I wear a genuine Jimmy Buffett Koko Island designer Hawaiian shirt and all he wears is a cheap Wal Mart plain-wrap Hawaiian shirt.

[annalex]

the hierarchs who determined most of the canon of scripture you study were merely performing a sort of automated housekeeping project, understanding little if anything of what they were reading

Quite beside the role of the Church in creating and sorting out the scripture, no one would have believed Christ is it were not for the martyrs of the Church that gave the Word to the world by dying for their faith. It was not an intellectual exercise then; it is not an intellectual exercise now.

I can tell you what Christianity would have been without the witness of the saints of the Church: an intriguing but largely unworkable ethical system taught by a lunatic, whose followers had a large imagination. We'd pay more attention to Seneca than to Christ if He chose to leave us with the scripture alone.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Well, the Jews made all sorts of sacrifices didn't they...and not one of them gained them anything eternal, did it?

Precisely. Because the only sacrifice capable of paying for the crime was God Himself. Men cannot merit grace, no matter how vainly they try.

[kawaii]

Don't add to Christ words. Christ says we must beleive and be baptised. There is no explicit commandment to search Holy Scripture for what we beleive.

There is one truth and our 'job' as you put it; is to be baptised and to beleive that truth.

Further Christ mentions a way to tell whether our church is a good tree, or a bad one, and it's based on the fruit that comes out of it. If we practice the true faith it should be evident in our lives and how we conduct ourselves.

[blue-duncan]

"because the pharisees think that eternal life comes form the scriptures."

What Jesus is saying is that the Pharisees think they have eternal life outside of Jesus and He is telling them that the scriptures testify that in Him is eternal life and they cannot see that.

John 5:38, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."


"My Church wrote the New Testament, not meraly catalogued it."

How did "your" church write the New Testament? John says we, not the church wrote.

1Jo 1:4 "And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."

Peter says "holy men of God" not the church.

2Pe 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

The majority of the authentic books were recognized by the various churches in the late first century, almost 300 years before Constantine declared Rome to be the seat, thus consolidating his political and religious power.

[Mad Dawg]

[ Just to be clear, the Catholic Church doesn't think that a "declaration by some human" makes people into saints. ]

SO THEN.... Mother Teresa is a saint and so is John Kerry/Teddy Kennedy since they are a Roman Catholics in good standing?..

How would THAT follow?

In any event, Teddy the Hutt isn't done yet. There's time for him. Ditto for Jean Francois Kerry.

And in general, I think we view the Church at least as much as a hosptial for sinners as a society of the elect. "Wheat and tares" figure into our thinking.

The declaration doesn't "make" somebody a saint, it acknowledges their sanctity. Further one reason for "All Saints Day" is the teaching that there are scads of saints who have not been "canonized".

[annalex]

It is clear that the justification spoken about in the verses you cite from Romans refers to the perfect sacrifice offered by Christ. It does not refer to the individual final justification of every believer because of every verse that speaks to the necessity of works in the gospel, and specifically Matthew 25, Apocalypse 22, Romans 2, James 2.

This is the program of working out the individual salvation as explained by St. Peter:

3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; 7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. 8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.

(2 Peter 1)

Make sure your calling and election. Read the scripture more, and prooftext less.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." -- Hosea 6:6

Even in the Old Testament, God instructs us that the offerings of men are ultimately useless, and that the knowledge of God comes by His mercy alone.

What do the words "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" mean to you, if not that Christ became a sacrifice for our sins, as God ordained according to His decree at creation?

[Mad Dawg]

... . Oh, I'm holier than him because I wear an Armiani suit to church and he wears blue jeans. Oh, I'm holier than him because I sit up straight and he slouches. Oh, I'm holier than him because my face is dour and he is smiling. God forbid that anyone should have joy in the Lord in Church.

Bearing in mind that MY spiritual peril is to think myself holier than the guy in the Armani suit, I would say it is also salutory, if not downright necessary, for us to be on the lookout for saying,"I thank thee God that I m not as other men are ... or even as this Pharisee ..."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And yet history proves it was not Rome who opened the Bible to all nations and races and languages. Just the opposite. For centuries RCs were cautioned not to read the Bible but to rely on their bishops and their church for "interpretation."

Twenty-year-olds may not understand this, but those of us who have lived long enough to see the changes made in the past few decades know the truth. The Bible was predominantly a closed book to most Catholics.

Unlike Protestants for whom the Bible is the armour of God.

THE SWORD: Part One
Its Foundation

"We have a great, grand and glorious heritage - the heritage of Bible Protestantism. Its greatness can be seen in what it has delivered us from: the tyranny of priestcraft and the chains of popery. Its grandeur is manifested in what we have been delivered to: the liberty of the Gospel and the freedom of the firstborn sons of God. Its glory is displayed in the fact that all its blessings, privileges and benefits become ours by grace, free grace alone. "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9.

We are now going to survey this heritage, looking upon it as a rich estate, a great dominion, a bounteous principality, or as a vast kingdom to which we have become heirs. As we traverse its length and breadth, and, like the Israelitish spies of old, study its riches and partake of its bounty, may the fact that it is ours, ours by God's free gift, ours to appropriate, ours to enjoy, yes, and ours to preserve, captivate our minds. May our sin never be that of Esau, to barter our heritage for a morsel of meat, and then to find no place for repentance though we seek it earnestly with tears.

True Protestantism - Bible Christianity

At the outset, let it be said with great plainness and straightforwardness of speech that true Protestantism is Bible Christianity, the Christianity of the Bible. Protestantism is Christianity, the Christianity of Christ. Protestantism is Christianity, the Christianity of the Apostles. Protestantism is Christianity, the Christianity of the Early Church. Protestantism is nothing less and nothing more than that Holy Religion revealed supernaturally to mankind in the pages of the Inspired Word and centred and circumscribed in the glorious adorable Person of the Incarnate Word, our Lord Jesus Christ..."

[hosepipe]

Thank you for compounding the discourse on Holy..
No doubt its real news to some..

Taking apart the greek words for love(phileo and agapeo) in John 21;15-17 would also be an eye opener to some others.. What Jesus was actually saying to Peter..

I know of few that even know what Jesus was actually instructing Peter.. The meaning is absolutely occluded in English.. because English has only one word for love..

The drama of these verses is pregnant with meaning, missed by everybody I personally know..

[kosta50]

A-G there is no challenge. I am not in an attack mode. I simply ask what people believe. If I don't share their beliefs I will say so, even say why, and leave it at that. I have not come here to judge you or anyone else. When I asked if all the saints you meet made "sacrifice" in His name, I meant that in all honesty. I have not met too many people who have. You say you have.

I merely observed that Heb 10 speaks of 'saints" in the same way Heb 8 speaks of the House of Israel. being orthodox, a saint means something else. You being former catholic should know that.

Thank you for sharing your faith with me. Believe me, I have no desire to challenge your beliefs. I merely inquire, and you have always answered honestly and to the point.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

individual final justification of every believer

And again we return to the error of Rome which sees Christ's justification of us as something inconsistent and changing and progressive and imprecise.

But in truth, all believers have been justified by the single, completed, eternal, merciful, life-altering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world."

We have been saved. We have been reborn. We have been rescued. We have been redeemed. We have been forgiven because Christ stood in our place and shouldered the cross for us.

This is what Protestants dislike about the RC faith -- you keep the truth hidden and dole it out according to your idea of good works, and not according to the grace of God alone.

And frankly, it's partly why so many ex-RCs remain angry at their first church which keeps the truth of Christ risen obscured and discomforting.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Christ says we must beleive and be baptised. There is no explicit commandment to search Holy Scripture for what we beleive.

??? How are men to believe if not by reading the word of God and being led by the Holy Spirit? Are we to believe our emotions? Our feelings? What other men tell us is true?

Scripture is the word of God. Search it and find Him.

We agree about the fruits of the Spirit. We are known by our fruit; they're an excellent road map.

[kosta50]

The word saint in the new testament original language(not Latin) merely means "holy one" or "the holy ones".. Holy in the Hebrew sense of the word.. The Greeks had no corresponding word for holy in the Hebrew sense/language, one had to be invented...

The Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew. The word use is "hagios (hagios), or most holy thing. Calling believers saints is +Pauline innovation, which appears in Act 9:32 for the first time applied to believers.

In new testament times they did not call each other Christians but "holy ones"/"saints".. Non believers called them Christians.. they called each other holy ones/saints..

Nonsense! Christians called themselves Christians in Antioch, one of the most ancient Churches not long after Christ was crucified. Calling believers 'saints' is +Paulian Christianity.

Note: the most prolific Christian writers, +Paul and +Luke, never knew the Lord personally. That should be a red flag right there.

[kosta50]

I think it most likely that Paul spent those three years in solitude in prayer, meditation and study on what Christ had revealed to him

I don't think so, FK. You need to really get acquainted with Saul. You will be surprised what you will find. He and the apostles in Jerusalem did not get along. Without +Barnabas, an early Christian "hot potato," +Paul would have been nowhere.

The Church "put up" with +Paul because he was the only one who could "sell" Christianity to pagan Greeks and Romans. The Christians were chased out of Jerusalem synagogues by 69 AD. The Church was dying in Israel. If +Paul didn't make it "palatable" to the pagans it would have died out.

Those are the real reasons for allowing Christians not to follow the Law, to forsake circumcision, to be released of dietary restrictions, and so on. +Paul made it up. Christ never taught that.

Of course, +Paul was not what the Church wanted, but it was do or die. Afterwords, the Church could not backtrack. Instead, there is a real possibility that some of the later "Paulian" Epistles were written as an afterthought. They differ a great deal from his earlier authenticated works.

The Church had to overlook some of +Paul's own personal interpretations such as his famous and very rarely mentioned verse:

"although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped..." [Phil 5:6]

+Paulian Christianity is distinct from the Christianity described in the Gospels. The Church had to find a way to mend them. It was a matter of survival.

[kosta50]

The scriptures are inspired by God, Himself, but the Church is free to override what God has said

And why are women preaching in Protestant churches? Why are they not covered? Please, HD, everyone cuts out that which does not fit a preconceived pattern. No one is sticking to the Bible 100% (mostly because we can't be sure what is really the Bible 100% of the time).

[kosta50]

Ping 6297

[kosta50]

Rather, it is a statement of faith. Incomplete, but valuable for a general understanding

Why make additional (imperfect) statements when all you need is the Scripture? In fact, why do protestants write so many books about what the Bible says if all you need is the Bible?

[kawaii]

??? How are men to believe if not by reading the word of God and being led by the Holy Spirit?

Well considering that Holy Scripture in written form was rare and expensive until fairly recently not to mention most folks in the early church couldn't read it if they'd wanted to and could afford it. I suspect that reading scripture is not a requirement for salvation.