'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/

[Blogger]

If God has called you to give up worldly possessions yes, but to gain some special favor for what a good boy you were, no.

Christianity is not a "stay away" religion. There are moments in time where one may retreat for a while. But a life of retreating from society is not found in the New Testament anywhere that I have seen.

Rather, Jesus's words were

Mark 16: 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

And Matthew 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And Acts 1: 8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

And Matthew 5:13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

[Forest Keeper]

I can understand how such a notion can arise out of the Western cult of the individual, but unless you are ready to subscribe to the revisionist Episcopalian notion of "pluriform truths" about the Faith, I think that in rejecting the Pope, you have likewise rejected The Church and an assurance of The Truth or a fair and humble statement that The Church simply doesn't know.

I doubt that I would be ready to sign up for much of anything Episcopalian these days, and pluriform truth would be on the list. :) While I do reject the Pope and a majority of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church I do also love and honor God's Church. I think they are two completely different entities (although many RCs are in God's Church) and I reject the claimed monopoly on truth by the hierarchy.

[D-fendr]

If God has called you..

If you thinking entering a monestery does not mean following God's calling, then maybe you don't know what's involved.

a life of retreating from society is not found in the New Testament anywhere that I have seen.

Hermits are rare, and completely alone for ever is rare if at all done. If you want a scriptural model, see St. John the Baptist.

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Is everyone called to be a preacher? You realize too that monks teach other monks and that some are priests with the duties of priests?

I don't think you appreciate their contribution. Monks I've never met have helped me a great deal.

[Blogger]

If God has called you..

If you thinking entering a monestery does not mean following God's calling, then maybe you don't know what's involved.
You give man too much credit. For example, throughout the middle ages men went there because they were the second sons of European Aristocracy. Others may go because they believe it assures them of salvation. If they just "do", then they "get."

Hermits are rare, and completely alone for ever is rare if at all done. If you want a scriptural model, see St. John the Baptist.
John did live out around desert for a while. But he did not stay there. He came as a fiery preacher preaching repentance. John is not an example of a perpetual hermit who gives his life over to study of God without contact with humanity. Again, such an example can not be found.

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Is everyone called to be a preacher? You realize too that monks teach other monks and that some are priests with the duties of priests?
Jesus did not make the distinction. The Greek means:1) to be a herald, to officiate as a herald a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald b) always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed 2) to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done 3) used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus, by the apostles and other Christian teachers

I don't think you appreciate their contribution. Monks I've never met have helped me a great deal.
Monks living in perpetual seclusion have no Scriptural precedent.

[D-fendr]

I think you're conflating monk with perpetual hermit.

And somehow seeing monastics as not proclaiming the Gospel. You might be able to understand that to me this is an extremely absurd position.

You're further measuring him by the number of converts or the length and loudness of his preaching and a count of seats in the pew. I don't think you mean to do this, but are merely ignorant of the lives and history and great effect and value of monastics.

You're also discounting completely the value of prayer.

Do you believe at all in intercessory prayer?

[Forest Keeper]

The Russian diplomatic chaplain to Japan just after the opening to the West, St. Nicholas of Japan, decided his posting there was not merely to minister to the diplomats, but to preach the Gospel to the Japanese.

Thanks for the interesting info.

[Blogger]

I specifically spoke of PERPETUAL HERMITS as being unbiblical. You are conflating what I am saying with what you would have liked me to have said.

The objection to monasticism earlier wasn't based so much on the hermit aspect as it was in Kolo's monastic quote being unscriptural.

The conversation you joined was midstream. It needs to be seen in its full context. If monks are spreading the true gospel I have no problem with it. If monks are living perpetual lives of seclusion, I believe it is unscriptural.

[Forest Keeper]

COE, Rule 23(b)(1)(A): When in doubt, the default position is listen to the Greek. (rev. 7/1054)

(rev. 7/1054) Nice touch, Kolo. :)

[D-fendr]

thanks for your reply. You're right, my apologies, I was speaking to the larger issue.

If monks are spreading the true gospel I have no problem with it.

We likely have different ideas about what constitutes spreading the true gospel, particularly as it applies to monastics. No matter..

If monks are living perpetual lives of seclusion, I believe it is unscriptural.

If again you mean perpetual hermits, then you have very little, or very few, to be concerned about.

If you throw out monasticism on this account, you have given up a great deal for something quite small.

[Blogger]

My biggest concern is that it be the true gospel.

For example, in Kolo's example, these men had a spiritual experience in which the felt enlightened. So have others. From Mahavira to the Buddha etc., they went away in a time of seclusion to attain enlightenment and came back with some sort of supernatural experience.

But, the experiences that they had fail the Scripture test. If the monks' experience doesn't, then great. But just because there is an experience does not mean it was from God (it could be from self or worse). It must be harmonious with the Word of God.

[Kolokotronis]

"If God has called you to give up worldly possessions yes, but to gain some special favor for what a good boy you were, no."

Monks don't abandon the world and possessions and concerns to gain a favor because they were good boys and girls. They do that so that they might die to the self and in so doing, the eye of the soul becomes clear. As the eye of the soul becomes more and more clear, a couple of things happen. First, the monk becomes increasingly aware of his own sins, of where he has "missed the mark" (which is what the Greek word for sin actually means; rather different than what the word has come to mean in the Protestant West, isn't it). This leads to profound repentence and further indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Second, the clearing eye of the soul begins to perceive the Uncreated Light of God and the monastic, having died to the self, is given a new life in the Light of Christ as a participant in the uncreated divine energies of God. It isn't a reward for being a good boy. It is the fulfillment of the Divine Purpose of our creation.

A couple of times you have said that we get all the grace we are going to get when we are "saved". I think I understand what you guys mean when you use the term santification, but it seems to me that "saved" means something different. Is this the concept that being saved is a one time event of some sort in the life of a Christian? Is it a +Paul on the Road to Damascus event? Once saved, is there anything else for the Christian to do to attain "santification"? If so, what and if one doesn't do it, what happens? In advance I appreciate your answer because I think it will allow me to understand your reaction to Christian monasticism.

[Kolokotronis]

"(rev. 7/1054) Nice touch, Kolo. :)"

An inside joke on several levels but only a very, very few of the cognoscenti can appreciate it at its deepest "professional" level! :)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for including me in your sidebar and for sharing all of your insights!

Truly, I’m one of the last ones on the forum to be involved in assessing the councils or counsels of men because as I often state I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of mortals, whether the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, etc. (Mark 7:7)

It is nothing personal to any of them – nor do I question their sincerity or judge them. I do enjoy reading their views every bit as much as I enjoy reading yours!

But I will only consider a view seriously if:

(a) all of the fruits of the Spirit are in evidence in the speaker (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control) (Matt 7,Gal 5) and

(b) whatever is said passes the Berean test against Scripture, (Acts 17) and

(c) the Spirit affirms what was said. (Romans 8, John 14-17, I Cor 2)

IOW, when it comes to Truth, I rely solely on the revelations of God the Father which are:

The Person of Jesus Christ, (John 14, John 1, Col 1) and

The indwelling Holy Spirit, (John 14-16, Romans 8) and

Scriptures as authenticated by the indwelling Spirit (not man) and

The voice of the Creation. (Psalms 19, Romans 1:20)

Moreover, that Truth is the standard wherein any further knowledge I happen to accrue in life is weighed and kept or dismissed - whether sensory perception, logic, views of other mortals, my own musings, etc.

So I am somewhat a "stick in the mud" when it comes to doctrine and tradition. LOL!

Truly, it took me a long time to arrive at this point, “working out my own salvation.” (Phl 2:12) Nevertheless, this is where I am and cannot be moved until I weigh anchor and go home:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. – 1 John 2:27-29

As hosepipe is wont to say, Christ didn't come to start a religion but a family.

[Quix]

Quite a number of us disagree from evidence we observe to be grounded in solid history and solid observations as well as solid logic.

[Quix]

IOW, when it comes to Truth, I rely solely on the revelations of God the Father which are:

The Person of Jesus Christ, (John 14, John 1, Col 1) and
The indwelling Holy Spirit, (John 14-16, Romans 8) and

Scriptures as authenticated by the indwelling Spirit (not man) and

The voice of the Creation. (Psalms 19, Romans 1:20)


Moreover, that Truth is the standard wherein any further knowledge I happen to accrue in life is weighed and kept or dismissed - whether sensory perception, logic, views of other mortals, my own musings, etc.
So I am somewhat a "stick in the mud" when it comes to doctrine and tradition. LOL!

Truly, it took me a long time to arrive at this point, “working out my own salvation.” (Phl 2:12) Nevertheless, this is where I am and cannot be moved until I weigh anchor and go home:


But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. – 1 John 2:27-29


As hosepipe is wont to say, Christ didn't come to start a religion but a family.
= = =

Exceedingly wise, Biblical, anointed and correct as usual . . . imho.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. I agree of course that spiritual experience requires discernment and that if one is called to deeper spiritual practice, guidance is required, however..

If the monks' experience doesn't, then great. But just because there is an experience does not mean it was from God…

How is this determined by what methods? I think you have no knowledge of their training and expertise. Your questions are akin to asking whether experiments at Fermi lab conform properly to the method of physics.

And in the case of the reformers, the philosophers closed the lab. IMHO of course...

[Forest Keeper]

(Pssst: I think if you go to the message in question, you'll find that annalex said that, not me. --- Nad I'm here thinking,"Hey, I don't even remember that and it was over a thousand posts ago!" and worrying about Alzheimers. FK, man ( [or woman, as the case may be], don't DO that to me!)

Sorry for the confusion. My reply style has always been the same. If I name the author of a quote then it is as written. If in a new paragraph I do not, it always means it was written by the first person on the ping list, in this case, Alex. For further distinction I put your quote in quotation marks. I didn't for Alex's. To my knowledge, it has never been a problem until now, but when I go back and look at it, I can see where there is room for confusion here. So, please accept my apologies, and I will try to be more clear next time. :)

BTW, I'm all DUDE! :)

[spunkets]

"Quite a number of us disagree from evidence we observe to be grounded in solid history and solid observations as well as solid logic."

Then you'd be able to explain why having a mom is so demeaning.

Here's some facts:

1.)The Father is God.
2.)The Son is God.
3.)The Holy Spirit is God.

Mary is the mother of the Son. That's why He's called the Son of man. The Son of man can only be called that if they had a mother. A son must have a mother. Now since the Son is God, it is clear that Mary is the mother of God. The only possible way for that conclusion to be false is if statement #2 is false. ie. The Son is not God.

[Forest Keeper]

I think in conversations of this kind an important early goal is to get each side agreeing with one another about what the starting positions are.

I totally agree. Whenever that happens I learn soooooooo much more.