'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/

[HarleyD]

Homosexual inclination is not a sin (but is an impediment for priesthood), acting on it is.

Then please explain this:

Mat 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Our Lord Jesus indicates that it's the thoughts that are sinful. Adultery is committed not by "acting out" but by lusting.

Sorry, but the Church is wrong on this one. You won't find many Protestant churches agreeing with you.

[Kolokotronis]

"Gives a whole new meaning to "The truth hurts.""

Indeed it does, but I am covering for another attorney tomorrow AM on a couple of matters in court. His clients are gonna wish it were only yiayia with the wooden spoon by the time the judge gets done with them. Oh well, I get to go home! :)

[Mad Dawg]

I agree with your general construction. I have quibbles.

This is me, and not any appeal to authority. I've always figured the "sin" in heterosexual lust was entertaining with approval (if not glee) the notion of using a child of God for my pleasure, self-esteem, yatta yatta. I mean, fish gotta swim, etc., and in general it's good thing that guys and gals and so forth. So it ain't the urge to merge itself which is sinful, but the urge to merge giblets without also joining selves in a muturally sacrificial and beneficial covenant inwhich God is the third party.

I have yet to meet a guy of the guy persuasion who has not committed this sin. Mind you. I haven't asked every guy I meet, so maybe that's wrong.

I do think that the homosexual urge to merge is intrinsically disordered, but that the urge itself is not so dreadfully culpabale; bad but not culpable; more a wound than a blow

Care to comment, edumicate, "share"?

[D-fendr]

Lust is sinful no matter who for by whom.

They're two separate issues.

[D-fendr]

I'm going to agree with you on the 'ground rules' part. We have to use words in some parts of teaching. And theology in large measure is reason applied to spirituality.

However, the way to know mysteries more fully is not with words or with the reasoning mind.

I think we have often lost this truth, and try to 'explain' the mystery using the wrong tools.

As Kosta, I believe it was, reminded us:

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."
St. Gregory the Theologian

[Mad Dawg]

Knock 'em speechless.

I enjoyed being a deputy very much. The security matters did not take enough of my brain (such as it is) to keep me from enjoying the legal and the human drama.

I have to say my favorite was general district court. Petty matters elevated to great drama and excitement. Constitutional issues brought up in a "Failure to wear seatbelt" case. Awesome.

We also had a great judge. IT was an education listening to him.

[Mad Dawg]

Help! I stuttered.

[Mad Dawg]

Credo ut intelligam. or. maybe Non possum intellegere nisi credam. Si non credas, non possis (- is that right?) intellegere. (It always helps if I make up my Latin as I go along.)

This is because, surprise surpise, theology is an empirical science. I have learned about grace mostly by being granted grace.

[Quester]

Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity?

Well, I know of Luther who broke his vows by marrying a nun, a horrid thing in my humble opinion.

Many a Catholic pope, bishop, and priest has broken many a vow (commiting acts much more horrid than marriage) ... without any promise of OSAS.

[D-fendr]

theology is an empirical science

I like that, gonna steal it. As for the Latin: um, umm, yeah.

thanks..

[Kolokotronis]

"Man is a composite being, made up of an earthly body and celestial soul... The soul is closely united with the body, yet wholly independent of it.

Man is not only reason but also heart. The powers of these two centers, mutually assisting one another, render man perfect and teach him what he could never learn through reason alone. If reason teaches about the natural world, the heart teaches us about the supernatural world... Man is perfect when he has developed both his heart and his intellect. Now the heart is developed through revealed religion." +Nektarios of Aegina

[hosepipe]

[ 1. Do you think I am saying we are justified by works, that we earn salvation? 2. Or is there some conneciton between Transubstantiation and "works-righteousness" that I'm missing? ]

1. Justification by faith period, not works.. or works of faith..

2. Never considered whether RCC transubstantiation was actually justification by works before... Interesting question.. I suppose it is.. Yes it is.. Good question.. Maybe thats what ticks me off about it..

But there are so many things in the RCC that appear to me to be the same... justification by works.. That the book of Galatians totally exposes.. Seeing Judaizers as other than certain Jews is a jump for some.. But its true.. There are many Judaizers both Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Judeo-christian cultic practices too.. especially JW's and Mormans.. and more..

[Mad Dawg]

I know I sometimes look like a "parser". And, who knows, maybe I am, in which case, may the Lord deliver me "and that right early".

With that apologetic introduction: There are two things which gnawed at me. (1)What distinguishes us from the Jews, who think Messias has not come? We think he has come, justified us, and gone, and will come again at the end of the age. They think He has not come. We agree that he is not here.

(2)It is, I think, the nature of humans to be thoughtful. My sheep wavered between choices. You could see them "thinking over" whether to go where I wanted them to go or not. But they were essentially "passionate" animals. I could sometime influence their "decisions" by crouching down and staring at them, because being stared at by predatory eyes is something in their programming. If I this scared them into the handling chutes, the ones who were friendly did not hold my aggressive behavior against me, and the ones who were skittish were not tamed by any amount of affection.

We, however, not only learn, but choose to learn. We reflect on our behavior and decide to try something new. We can discover that we are able to "program ourselves not to be afraid" and then we can undertake the programming.

If God will save me as human, then (I thought) maybe He must save me into better thinking. YES, my will is ravished by the realization of His love. But if I am always ravished, how am I free?

I will eagerly admit that when the truth reveals itself clearly as truth, then I have no hesitation in yielding to its embrace.

But we are moral. I don't mean we are good, I mean we are creatures about whom it is relevant to ask if our actions are good or not, and what in heaven's name we were thinking when we did THAT? If a sheep makes bad decisions, It gets eaten. Even a mature ram, properly cooked, tastes good. I don't condemn him. I regret that he didn't do what I wanted from that ram, and I ask Nancy to pass the A-1.

But when we have to hang Saddam, I think we recognize there is a loss here, almost even a tragedy. Here was someone made to choose and rejoice in good, and he blew it, and never turned to the One who could make his failure an occasion of a great redemption. This is a sorrowful thing.

So, I thought, I want to choose God. Not only when He ravishes me and shows me the joy of His forgiveness and Love, but when He is not clearly consoling me and "all occasions do inform against me" and it is not easy to choose Him. (Haven;t we all had times when we felt God had left town and wsn't coming back? We "knew" that wasn't true, but it sure felt like that) I'd like to think that, threatened with Lions or nails on a blackboard or a dentist's drill in the hands of a sadist, I would still affirm my trust in Him. I implore Him, not only for salvation, but for the grace to Love Him more nearly and to show that love more fearlessly and resolutely day by day.

What I want from Him, is the ability to choose Him, just as a son, helped by his father to rake the leaves, longs to be able to rake the leaves by himself and, maybe, surprise the Father with what he's done.

Now I know that every single, without exception, good gift comes from the Father in Heaven. So my yearning and its fulfillment come from Him. I know that. I boast of that. I rejoice in that. I count on that. I hope one day to have the courage to stake my life on that.

And it is in this sense that I rely on Him to enable me to do good works.

Maybe you saw my other analogy, the one about the gym membership. When I come before God, I will kneel and then say, Look at these biceps! Look at these quads! Watch me do push-ups and chin-ups. This is your doing, and it is marvelous, at least in my eyes. That I worked and hurt and sweat and groaned, and finally saw my muscles getting bigger and my push-ups going from maybe seven to fifteen to twenty. -- all this I have from you, and now I give it back to you.

If that sounds like Judaizing, well, I'd like to know how.

[betty boop]

Transubstantiation is an especially nasty filthy concept.. that makes a mockery out of Jesus' metaphor.. Talk about "SPIN"... The RCC is just filled to the brim with nasty concepts.. I won't get into the "Mary thing"..

Oh my, dearest brother in Christ, how carnally-minded you seem in these remarks! [WRT the spirit/donkey metaphor, who is riding whom here?] Of all people, I'd have thought you among the first to appreciate an absolutely rip-roaring divine miracle. As in "Isn't God cool or what?"

Just to remind you that God and His providential plan cannot be reduced to human (carnally-minded) categories of explanation. This is not to say that God is "unreasonable." There would be no reason in the world absent the Logos -- the Son, the Word of the Beginning, the Alpha and the Omega, the sacrificial Lamb of God, who paid the penalty for human sin thus giving each one of us a new start in the Life of the Spirit of God, mediator and comforter, so to be restored to our Father in the Holy Name of His Son: As the proverb of the Prodigal Son details, in the Body of Christ born of Christian Love ("born again" and ever renewed in faith, hope, and charity).

If you think I'm out of line here, then we need to talk! Meanwhile, I love you guy!

[betty boop]

This is because, surprise surpise, theology is an empirical science. I have learned about grace mostly by being granted grace.

May God ever bless you for saying this, MadDawg. Anything that human beings have ever done in history is "empirical" if it's recorded and available for consultation. Even Richard Dawkins would have to grant this, or else the fossil record disappears.

But your second statement is what really hit home, in the Spirit of Truth. May God bless you, brother.

[betty boop]

And I think it is a great loss. I hope that over time it will cease to be true.

That is my great hope too, D-fendr.

Thank you for writing.

[Blogger]

Really? How do you know that? Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity? I have never heard of this happening, even once. That's because it isn't taught. For anyone to be doctrinally aware of OSAS, or POTS, it is almost always the case that they are also aware of the further teaching that scripture through Paul SPECIFICALLY REJECTS the attitude you are concerned about. "BY NO MEANS" says Paul over and over. You have to take into account the complete teaching, not just that HALF of it "sounds" bad.

And such is Sola Scriptura. You take the WHOLE of Scripture. Not just the parts you feel good about.

The "one can go out and live like the devil" is one of the biggest strawmen that was ever concocted. And you're absolutely right- I've never seen someone just resting on their "eternal security" and thinking they can go do whatever. Those who believe in the eternal security of the believer are usually more biblically aware than that and will take the WHOLE of Scripture as a rule of faith and practice.

[Blogger]

Well, I know of Luther who broke his vows by marrying a nun, a horrid thing in my humble opinion.
Vows made to a satanic church (and YES what was going on in the church at the time WAS most certainly Satanic- from Papal mistresses to bankrupt Popes to selling indulgences, to simony, to pluralism) before one was a Christian are not laid to one's charge.

My point is simply that once the presumption of election is made by someone, a door to sin opens wider.
Your point is a straw-man; just like if I said the idea that having last rights shortly before death absolves me of sin so eat drink and be merry is a straw man. Human beings are just that. Those who are devout are truly devout. Those who are playing at faith or just want fire insurance are something else.

A true understanding of the doctrine of election doesn't lead to sin. It leads to humility.

[Blogger]

I don't think explaining a mystery is possible.
I think a lot of this thread is made up of disagreements by folks who are trying to explain a mystery. Some things, we just don't have adequate knowledge. Doesn't mean discussing them is wholly unprofitable. But we should hold back on hurling charges of heresy at folks for simply disagreeing with our understanding of what is essentially not fully explained in Scripture.