'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/

[Mad Dawg]

Hypothesis contrary to fact is always an unreliable way to procede. I think what was meant was the martyrs were a major part of the spreading of the Gospel. Does anyone disagree with that? Blood of martyrs = seed of Church, yes?

But I doubt there is anyone on this thread who would dispute that the martyrs got the courage to give their testimony from the Holy Spirit.

[Mad Dawg]

Here is another word(holy) the greeks had no equal to in the Hebrew sense of Holy.. but a word was invented(morphed) to correspond to it in Greek.... The morphing of greek(and other language) words to represent totally Hebrew concepts must surely have confused many non Jews(gentiles)..

Sources! I need sources!

[hosepipe]

Wonder how many of those posting on this thread has ever read John Fox's Book of Martyrs..

It is now Googleable.. for FREE...
I suspect not many..

[hosepipe]

[ Sources! I need sources! ]

Be creative.. with Google..
-OR- be lazy...

[Kolokotronis]

"Here is another word(holy) the greeks had no equal to in the Hebrew sense of Holy.. but a word was invented(morphed) to correspond to it in Greek.... The morphing of greek(and other language) words to represent totally Hebrew concepts must surely have confused many non Jews(gentiles).."

The words "αγια" and "αγοις" both existed in ancient and koine Greek and mean exactly what they say. They aren't made up words not found before the NT or the Spetuagint. What does the Hebrew word for "Holy " imply which is different from the Greek? If it is different, do you suppose perhaps that the writers of scripture meant for the Greeks words to mean something different?

[blue-duncan]

"Hypothesis contrary to fact is always an unreliable way to procede."

It's getting late and I must confess that I don't understand what your point is. I don't think I disputed that God used martyrs as part of His redemptive program.

[kosta50]

Do you know the lord personally?..

I have not seen Him, walked with Him, ate with Him. Have you? I just find it interesting that those who boast of the indwelling Spirit write more and talk more than those who sat with Christ and listened to Him speak, ate with Him, walked with Him, and witnessed Him first hand.

The paraclete(Holy Spirit) is an ever present personality available for help

How do you know that it's the Spirit? Do you see Him? Does He say I am the Holy Spirit? You know, there was a man by the name of Mohammad. And he wrote a whole book called the Koran (Quran), which was dictated to him, word-by-word, by none other than God, or so he says...and there are over one billion people on this earth who believe him!

Everyone, or so it seems, boasts of some divinity working inside of them. I feel that sometimes, but I have no clue what it is. I feel that somehow I am gently ushered back into repentance and self-denial, but like a person in a dream I "know" who I am thinking of but really don't have a label or a picture that comes with it.

[Quester]

DIRECT ACCESS WITH DADDY

Take a deep breath. That part is not in the scripture anywhere.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[P-Marlowe]

Kolo, my friend, that is out and out nonsense.

Thanks BD. I was about to say that statements like that make me lean towards becoming a full fledged dyed in the wool John Piper Michael Horton Charles Spurgeon GRPL Calvinist. Then I thought better of it and cancelled the post.

But I agree that Kolo's statement is utter nonsense.

Carry on.

[annalex]

Again, the difference is doctrine vs. doctrine. Some Protestant groups allow all kind of perversions as a matter of doctrine. We don't. We also consider bearing a false witness a serious sin, by the way. You?

[Mad Dawg]

Not disputing the the "Daddy", disputing the "Direct access". "through Jesus Christ our Lord" isn't just a formula, it's how prayers are made in fact, we believe..

[hosepipe]

[ The words "αγια" and "αγοις" both existed in ancient and koine Greek and mean exactly what they say. They aren't made up words not found before the NT or the Septuagint. What does the Hebrew word for "Holy " imply which is different from the Greek? ]

The Greeks, before some became christians, had no idea of anything HOLY, none.. Meaning they no idea of what and who the real God was, wanted for mankind, or demanded that they perform.. The Hebrew God was God.. and allowed no person to decide for himself what holy was.. How to "get" holy or make something holy, or to even to approach holiness..

This Hebrew God TOLD YOU what was and wasn't holy..
It was not decided by some group of priests.. what was holy..

Holiness is NOT setting something aside for specific use.. like the Greek word..
The Hebrew God did not allow you to decide how to worship him.. like the Greek gods..
Which were not Gods at all.. merely mental constructs..

The Jews eventually degraded to use the Talmud..
Which is composed of the Mishnah and the Gemarah(sp?)..
The mishanah was the opinions of certain rabbis as to what the Torah really meant..
The gemarah(sp?) was another set of Rabbis opinions on what the mishnah Rabbis really meant..

As it is to this day.. pretty much what many many Roman Catholics do with what they call church fathers opinions.. You know following "tradition".. same thing basically..

[annalex]

He says that it is the scripture that testify of Him, not tradition that the Pharisees were relying on for their works based righteousness. Jesus was telling them it was the scripture that revealed Him as the Way, but they would not believe Him because they were invested in their tradition interpreted scripture.

Do you actually read your own prooftexts?

Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting (John 5:39)

Not a word about tradition or salvation by works; but it is the pharisees, who are described, with some irony, as those who think that everlasting life is found in the scripture., when Jesus is sitting right in front of them.

[Mad Dawg]

You mean I'm supposed to know what my point was? Where does it say that? That is SEW, like, not fair!

I meant that Kolo ( may he forgive me if I'm wrong) got sucked into the kind of argument (hypotheses contrary to fact, as in: if there were no martyrs) that can lead to misunderstanding almost as quickly as a collar stained with lipstick in a shade not used by your wife. I tried to translate what I presumed to think Kolo was saying into an articulation that did not use that tricky form of argument. I never thought you would dispute that martyrs were, evangelically speaking, da bomb.

[annalex]

It just so happens that He has chosen trials and even martyrdom to bring His purposes about.

Stop the presses. So it was not the Father demanding sacrifice after all?

It was only by the power of the Holy Spirit that the martyrs had the courage to die for their faith.

No dispute there.

Jesus said that if the crowd did not praise Him when He entered Jerusalem then the rocks would

Before the Passion, yes. He was popular. After the Cross, it was the witness of the saints, not the scripture, that made the world Christian. I can introduce to you any number of assorted non-Christians who read the same scripture you or I do and have not an ounce of belief. Scripture, they've seen. Sanctity, they did not. Then we have your folk who (1) arrogate sainthood to themselves (2) insist on doing nothing to attain holiness (3) riducule the true saints who gave you Christianity as a bunch of dead people. So much for your witness.

[blue-duncan]

Out of curiosity, how far did you get in leaning towards becoming a full fledged dyed in the wool John Piper, Michael Horton, Charles Spurgeon, Calvinist, GRPL? Did you get as far as John Piper? Did you get beyond Piper and on to Horton? Did you get beyond Piper and Horton and into Charles Spurgeon? I know at times you have sounded like a Calvinist, but that was with fear and trembling, but here were you able to get by Piper, Horton, Spurgeon to pure Calvinism? I recognize that to attain GRPLship you have to have a funny bonectomy and a desensitizing of your sense of humor so I'm sure you didn't go that far but where did you courage run out? I promise not to tell anyone, your secret is safe with me.

[Kolokotronis]

" But I agree that Kolo's statement is utter nonsense.

Carry on."

Actually, guys, it was Alex's statement, not mine, but I'm happy to take credit for it.

[P-Marlowe]

I recognize that to attain GRPLship you have to have a funny bonectomy and a desensitizing of your sense of humor so I'm sure you didn't go that far but where did you courage run out?

We are not amused.

[annalex]

Abba, Father

Yes; and we pray to Our Father. But the poster implied that the sonship of God somehow negates the Apostolic Church.

[Mad Dawg]

Holiness is NOT setting something aside for specific use.. like the Greek word..

Woah! I see where you are coming from conceptually, but I think that both "religions" had an idea of "Setting stuff aside for 'religious' type use". 'm not disputing that worshipping the Lord of Hosts isn't essentially different from worhsip this particular one of a multitude of "gods". But "consecrated" is an popular and easily accessible notion, as in: MOM! You WASHED them! And they were my lucky socks! Or," You will be MY people, a people set apart, and I will be your God."

I would have said that everyone has SOME idea of what holiness is, just enough to have a clue when those Christian weirdos come into th community and start talking about it.

And the more the Christian weirdos talk, the more some of them realize that their old idea was WAY off base. But there was some resonance. It's not like they came in and said, "Fgjzcy is ghlppny and requires azqwxfdtness". It was 'Jesus is the Son fo God and He requires Faith. Now lets talk about what we mean by "Jesus", "God", and "Faith", and in a couple of hunderd years we'll get around to talking about "Son".'