'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/

[klossg]

klossg from past post: Baptism isn't a work that I do. Baptism is a gift from God. Baptism is a grace.

wmfights:Nonsense

Funny that. :) I cannot baptize myself. If I do work, I must have the ability to do said work, correct? Or do you work through others somehow? Does baptism come from interior to yourself? Do you not need Christ to be baptized?

A work is any physical activity.

Then everything anyone does is a work. Thinking is a work performed by electrical and chemical control in the mind. Reading the Bible is a work. Thinking or saying "I am saved by faith alone" is a work. As you define it, how can any human being who is not dead not work in their faith. your religious caste

What does this mean?

Please help me understand how these two statements from your post do not contradict each other?

1. In my sect we believe we are justified by Faith alone, there are no works that our justification is contingent upon before, during or after.

2. After I was justified," I was drawn by a desire to be Baptized?

My sect is not the only one that requires Baptism. Don't the Reformed require Baptism? If so, how is it by faith alone that you are saved? If it doesn't require it, why did you do it? Is it a work? Are you saved by it? Can you renounce it and still be saved?

You must attend Mass. You must take communion. You must confess to your Priest.

The first two you list are precepts of the Church. The only reason these are required is because the Church has asked us to go to Mass and receive the Eucharist. Why anyone would not be drawn to the Eucharist ... I cannot imagine, especially after Christ tells us to eat his flesh in the Bible. If the Church did not make them precepts, we would not be required to do them. Disobedience of the Church is the sin that occurs if one does not go to Mass every week or receive the Eucharist once a year. In themselves these acts of love are not what justify a Catholic. These acts of love are graces from Christ.

Confession of mortal sins to a Priest is not so much required by the Church but instead was instituted by Christ and His Apostles. If we commit mortal sins after Baptism, we reject our relationship with Christ. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit leaves us. "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." 1 Jn 3:24. Confession of mortal sins doesn't save us in itself, it is rather a return to good standing in our relationship with Christ which began with our Baptism.

Spiritual acts are not evil in themselves. They do not justify us either. They can help: as when we physically declare our love of Christ and our need of Christ or when we teach others the Gospel. Christ alone justifies us. But, I will not give up going to Mass or receiving Christ in the Eucharist, even if the Church were to nullify its precepts (which it wont, due to the Holy Spirit). They provide graces through Christ that I would not likely contact myself. "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house" Acts 2:46 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" 1 Cor 10:16

[klossg]

The following got tied into a previous paragraph in post 8,161 but it should actually stand by itself and read:

your religious caste

What does this mean?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your magnificent reply, dear spunkets!

As far as I’m concerned the reconciliation of physical and spiritual realities vis-à-vis Revelation falls in the category of “musings” and thus either of us could be right – or (more likely) we are both wrong. LOL! We’ll see.

At some point in the breaking of the seals, God will shatter the illusion held so strongly by the atheists that the physical realm is “all that there is.” I believe that occurs here, setting up the outpouring of the wrath of God which precedes Christ's millennium rule on earth:

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? – Rev 6:12-13

IOW, IMHO, the people who remain in the physical realm after this will not be able to hold onto their metaphysical naturalism because God the Father has shown clearly that He is and the Lamb is. They will be forced to choose. Even so, many faced with the reality of the spiritual realm, will choose poorly.

And I do agree that the big “rip” occurs in Revelation 21 – the creation of the new heaven and earth. The difference I perceive is that this physical reality remains to some extent in Revelation 6 (sixth seal) - for the final, seventh seal and Christ's thousand year rule on earth (the Sabbath of Adamic man using the 7,000 year Jewish interpretation, the week allotted to Adam.)

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. – Rev 21:1

Any hoot, that is my “musing” on the matter.

As to the physics, we are approaching the same subject from different aspects - akin to wave/particle duality.

You identify dark energy as the vacuum (of space.) I identify dark energy as an “outdent” in the fabric of space/time, the opposite of a high positive gravity, space/time “indent.”

For the Lurkers: gravity can be visualized as a particle, a graviton. It can also be visualized as the geometry of space/time.

The effect on the expension/acceleration of the universe is the same.

Or to put it in other words, I see energy/matter being created as the universe expands – a geometric change being the cause of energy/matter. I suspect you see energy/matter being the cause of the expansion of space/time.

In either case, space/time and energy/matter are phenomenons of the expanded universe.

Likewise we are looking at dimensions from two different aspects. You are perceiving extra-dimensions as compactified (string theory) whereas I am perceiving expanded dimension(s) from the big bang (higher dimensional dynamics.)

Perhaps that is why you have confidence in CERN’s upcoming test to observe the so far undetected Higgs field/boson?

At any rate it always seems to come down to what we consider to be “real.”

In my view, at the root, physical reality is all geometry. Or as Einstein dreamed, to transmute the base wood of matter to the pure marble of geometry, I too assess the "marble" of the equation as the geometry.

Again I aver that it may be that what we detect as particles in four dimension space/time may actually be massless, i.e. shadows of extra-dimensional momentum we cannot detect (yet.) And further that these particles may be multiply-imaged from as little as a single particle in a higher dimension.

But again, we’ll see.

At any rate, as I mused in 7900 - this physical reality, is like a stage play that was being performed for Adam’s benefit to reveal properties of God, e.g. that He is Good and not evil. But Adam jumped on the stage so here we, his descendants, are with a huge observer problem. We cannot clearly see the spiritual reality from here which is to say, while yet in the flesh. But that will change for all mortals when the heavens are rolled back like a scroll - or in the metaphor, the curtain (or firmament) falls. But the spiritual reality (in the metaphor, the audience) is what "all that there is" is "about."

The geometric scenario I’ve outlined above fits that scenario to a “T”. But yours would work as well.

But we’ll see…

Oh, and I do not have a leading in the Spirit one way or the other whether the firmament is the speed of light as suggested in the Jewish interpretation. But I do have a Spiritual leading that it is a boundary which is not geometric per se - the spiritual "there" and physical "here" are not necessarily spatially separated. But what that boundary "is" (the curtain in my stage play metaphor) I don't know.

[Marysecretary]

Oh, good grief.

[Marysecretary]

Mary must be appalled at some of this veneration. She was a simple young girl who always put her son first in her walk. I don't think she'd be a happy camper these days.

[Quix]

Grieved to the max, likely.

Though perhaps Father has wiped away all tears for them there, already.

Christ distanced himself from her and from their former roles/relationship twice as described clearly in The Gospels.

Once at the temple at 12.

2nd time when they came saying His relatives were seeking him.

Given Christ doing the opposite of 'veneration,' adoration and worship . . . how can mortals dare to do otherwise than Christ on that score?

. . . . through demonically inspired cheek to the max, I guess.

I didn't realize that in praying the rosary . . . one says 5 OUR FATHERS for 50 hail Mary's. That makes pretty clear who gets the focus right there.

No wonder God is upset with such UnBiblical, UnChristian, UnGodly behaviors and focus.

Bringing God down to man's level by man's deeds, actions, constructions on reality AND raising man/woman to God's level by man's deeds, actions, constructions on reality

is not a good way to win God's favor.

Or Mary's for that matter.

[Mad Dawg]

For if God is Life, how can He be the source of death? If God is Perfection, how can He be the author of chaos? If God is good, how can He be the source of evil?

Anything else implies a God that is not eternal and unchanging.

Another approach: If there is anything that is not God, then perfection, etc. cannot be attributed to that thing in the same way as it can to God. So the proposition "There is that which is not God," includes the possibility of evil, death, all like that there, especially if one understands evil as a "privation of good." To create light is to create the possibility of shadow, maybe?

With respect to prooftexting: Absolutely. But I'm also VERY antsy about saying that such and such a line in the OT is just wrong. Incomplete, yeah, but wrong?

And again, Maybe if I were smarter I wold have studied philosophy and linguistics, because my persistent sense is that one thing we are looking for in Theology is "The right way to say it," since our first concession has to be that every predication we make about God is wrong.

SO, with that as prolegomenon, what I take from the OT (and from the use of "abba" in the NT) is that it is licit and helpful to use personal language about God, as LONG as one holds onto the guiding principle that everything we say is wrong (but some things are WAY wrong, while others are just wrong.)

Do you have a comment on "Knowing (or seeing) isn't causing"?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

A great example would be Calvinism. Through this spectrum we enter into a fuller understanding of our relationship with God and grow because of it.

Amen. One has to ask the question: Does the Holy Spirit lead a man into error and confusion and contradiction?

The answer is a resounding "no."

Some methodologies and practices may vary according to preference (I include infant vs. adult baptism here because both, when accomplished according to a reformed perspective, are not a means of acquiring God's grace but a sign and seal of God's grace.)

But doctrines such as justification by faith alone are intrinsic to a correct understanding of God's grace and the very reason we are saved. We are saved by Christ's righteousness alone according to God's unmerited mercy alone through faith alone in the One who has paid for our all our sins in full, once for all time, as ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.

Not everyone who is elect believes this today. But all who are saved will eventually come to this joyous knowledge and quickened understanding by the "renewing of their minds." Because God may choose a circuitous path for our walk, but when the Holy Spirit takes us by the hand and leads us, there is but one direction home.

[Forest Keeper]

Our Lord Jesus Christ makes that analogy, FK (cf. Mat 9:30-31) A physician can heal, but his patients must cooperate.

I don't think He makes that analogy at all. In verse 29 of your passage it says: "29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you". Where do believers get their faiths? Do they produce it themselves? No, saving faith comes only from God:

Rom 10:17 : 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Now, where do we get ears to hear? :

Prov 20:12 : 12 Ears that hear and eyes that see — the LORD has made them both.

Everything comes from God, not us. If Christ meant that we must cooperate, then the "ears to hear" that the Lord made were incomplete and ineffectual without man's help.

But [FK's teenagers] still have free will and, short of making them robots, that free will can produce catastrophic results no matter how much you 'own' them. They choose to obey you.

Sure they have free will, and do make mistakes. I exercise my "control" over them for their protection to the best of my ability. This ability is incomparable to the control that God has over His children. If I get everything I want, then they will both be spiritually and physically safe during my tenure over them. I have some, but limited power to ensure this. God, OTOH, has limitless power to get what He wants. Therefore, God will use that power to keep His children spiritually safe unto the time of ultimate glory.

Attainment first, award later.

Fair enough. :)

[Quix]

Impressive exposition, yet again, to this layman! Thanks.

Ping to timer

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

[Forest Keeper]

Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone

The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

Thanks Kolo. This appears to me to be as advertised, and very different from other prayers I have seen. I see no worship here.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In this process of questioning I see the LORD opening his eyes. If he looks for the answers in Scripture he will find them!

Amen! Jesus loved and saved Thomas, even though Thomas needed to see for himself. We forget the other disciples had already witnessed Christ after the grave, and they, too, believed in part because they saw it was true. So Thomas wasn't asking for anything the other disciples hadn't already been given -- assurance through his own eyes.

Jesus acknowledges it will be more difficult for future believers -- "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." But with the Holy Spirit as their guide, they will eventually proclaim along with Thomas, "My LORD and my God."

And it's our very human nature to weigh and measure. The wonderful thing about God's grace is that once declared, all scales tip towards Christ.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for your reply. Very interesting.

Now, in that moment when you "get it", there is NEITHER any question of turning away or rejecting it, nor any apprehension of loss of freedom. The gift, as it seems, of "Getting it" delivers freedom, it doesn't take it away, and yet there is no question, at the time, of using one's freedom to reject the gift.

I really agree with you in how you describe "getting it". We would call this the unilateral work of the Spirit upon the elect, or future believer. When you say that there is no question of using one's freedom to reject, does that mean one has the power, but never uses it in these situations? If so, then our differences here are minuscule, if even distinguishable.

I'm not coming down on one side or the other of a theological dispute, not here. I am saying many of us have had an experience where something very like revelation overwhelmed our so-called "free will" and we found that overwhelming to be a gain, not a loss, of freedom.

Amen, and well said. :)

[Gamecock]

WM:I think you can find saved Christians who have been born again in almost every sect of Christianity. However, any sect that believes you need to do works in order to be saved is wrong.

HD:I would agree with you to a point. I feel doctrine does matter.

WM:I think your right. Scriptural doctrine will lead us into a closer, fuller relationship with our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, but it does not save us. A great example would be Calvinism. Through this spectrum we enter into a fuller understanding of our relationship with God and grow because of it.

Amen.

Nor do those with incorrect doctrine have the full benefit of being in the body of Christ. That is they are constantly buffeted by bad doctrine, always uncertain of their own salvation. As the elect, they will be seen through by the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom. But in this life they will have a spiritual life that is to be pitied.

[wmfights]

Some methodologies and practices may vary according to preference (I include infant vs. adult baptism here because both, when accomplished according to a reformed perspective, are not a means of acquiring God's grace but a sign and seal of God's grace.)

I think Baptism is a great case in point. If our practices differ on this it really is not a big deal, if it is not necessary for salvation.

[wmfights]

...constantly buffeted by bad doctrine, always uncertain of their own salvation.

Wow, that's it in a nut shell! There is nothing more fulfilling than the blessed assurance that once Jesus has you in his hands nothing can pull you away. Jesus will not lose any the Father has given him!

[Forest Keeper]

I think, on the ground, it's important to remember, as a matter of political science, that the RCC is an eleemosynary institution. If anything, when you quit you have MORE worldly goods.

I don't understand what you mean.

So, I'm suggesting, FUNCTIONALLY it's like there's a charism given to the Church as a big, huge blob, and another charism given to the Successor of Peter as something like a pressure valve.

OK, I can see that comparison in its intent. It matches what I have been told elsewhere. Even so, I would respectfully disagree on the need for a pressure valve.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

always uncertain of their own salvation.

Yes, it always gets back to assurance.

If Christ has paid for our sins, once for all time, by the grace of God, how can we worry?

RESOLUTIONS
by Jonathan Edwards

"BEING SENSIBLE THAT I AM UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT GOD'S HELP, I DO HUMBLY ENTREAT HIM BY HIS GRACE TO ENABLE ME TO KEEP THESE RESOLUTIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO HIS WILL, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE...

"...53. Resolved, to improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer. July 8, 1723."

(Gasp! It's a list!)

[Kolokotronis]

"Jesus has you in his hands nothing can pull you away. Jesus will not lose any the Father has given him!"

Why does the second sentence necessarily follow from the first except to say that Christ will have no fault in any loss? You may have answered this for me before.