'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]

How come I come upon this when it's past my bedtime?Earlier, is suggested (and this is a notion I got first from Dante) that the punishment is integral to the sin, is the "coming true" of the sin. I can no more reject God and live then I can close my eyes and see -- that sort of thing.

Then we have the notion which I believe that all "justice" (or nearly all )was civil, personal almost. If I "have shot mine arrow o'er the house// And hurt my brother", I owe somebody something. There was a law in Iceland, I just read: There shall be no such thing as an accident. In other words, I hurt somebody; I pay; that's that. Mens, schmens!

As the Calvinists in the conversation will eagerly tell you, I am not a Calvinist. But I think that in your thoughtful post and my clunky efforts what we're achieving is to say that is is NOT totally off the wall for someone to be doomed to sin and yet justly punished for his sin.

I rode shotgun on an extradition from Brooklyn to Charlottesville. The young man we picked up was charming and pleasant. And doomed. He had no clue. It was against his sense of honor to be dissed by Corrections Officers, so when his tender honor was offended he retaliated. Consequently he spent right much time in the hole at Rikers. One of our deputies had been a CO so he knew this particular guy and confirmed my impression that he would certainly do all his time, because, well, honor demanded it.

And it was important to him that I understand that he only boosted stuff from stores. He didn't burgle or rob individuals.

It was as if the categories of thought that are requisite for life outside the pokey were just not part of his armamentarium. He was doomed. I hated it, but I sure don't want him on the outside!

And yet, sometimes, too rarely, I pray for him. Such a nice guy, and such a huge, self-destructive jerk.

[jo kus]

Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. Period.

Please define works - because it appears, from your subsequent writing - that you and Paul have different ideas on how we are saved...

"Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God. Who will render to every man according to his works. To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another" Romans 2:4-15

This passage, immediately preceding Romans 3, destroys your idea of salvation. Paul here says a number of things that you seem to disagree with. For example, we are justified by something that we do... EVEN GENTILES are inhabited by the Spirit and CAN show the work of the law written in their hearts.

It would be quite amazing if Paul wrote this, and then, one chapter later, would say something totally opposite and deny it. That is why I ask you to define works, because I believe this is where you are confused.

Christ's salvation was a gift. If we do one thing to contribute to it it isn't a gift any more, it is recompense.

That is not what Romans 4:4 says:

"Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt."

Those who are trying to earn salvation are "working" - and will demand a wage. However, by "doing something", it doesn't follow that we will take this to God and demand a wage. This totally misunderstands that fact that God and man are in a covenantal relationship, a relationship of love, not a legal relationship. Thus, a person who responds to God's love by loving Him in return is doing what is expected from the faithful servant. This doesn't earn us anything. Nonetheless, we are considered just by God because of our positive response to His free gift - since the DOER of the Law is justified. Christ says the same thing...

"For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" Mat 5:20

"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mat 7:21

Christ paid the debt in full. How dare anyone say it wasn't enough or complete.

"I Paul am made a minister. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are lacking of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church". Col 1:24

Christ paid the debt in full for all men. But is it applied to everyone? Was Paul's offering of himself for the sake of the church pointless?

Regards

[blue-duncan]

"God does not compel us to answer."

Jesus says (John 6:37) "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.". How does Jesus know that the "all" that the Father gives will respond positively to the faith given if it is left dependent on the "all" to answer?

[kosta50]

Annalex to Forest Keeper: But someone prayed for you many a Rosary. If Christendom stopped praying, the universe would stop. This is why monasticism is vital in our lives

That is spot on, Alex.

[annalex]

You recognized the verse, did you not? Look it up.

[annalex]

None of these scripture verses illustrates your contention that confirmation and ordination are of no relevance to the gift of the Holy spirit.

[kosta50]

Annalex to Forest Keeper: The Christian Canon was formalized at the Carthage councils, presided by St. Augistine, in early 5c. There has not been a single Old Testament since without the Deuterocanons ever since in the Church, East of west. Trent confirmed it because "your guys" were quick with a scissors when the Word of God told you what you did not want to hear

FK, are you saying the Church fathers who put together the Christian canon were guided by the Spirit (which is why you read their Bible) but were wrong when it came to deuterocanical books? How's that possible? What makes you think the rest of the Binble was 'protected' from error?

[spunkets]

You're welcome.

[annalex]

you preach another gospel

I trust the reader can decide who of us makes a scriptural discourse in context and who offers personal opinions loosely connected to verses out of context.

[annalex]

I rarely post here anymore

Come on, Joe! The camaraderie, the turkey shoot, -- where else do you have it?

[Mad Dawg]

You are SUCH a PITA! ;-)

What God created was good. Evil is not a creature of God. God did not create evil. Evil does not exist. If all mankind suddenly turned to God, evil would "vanish" instantly.

My urge is to say,"Amen Alleluia" and go to bed. But ...

YES, what God created is good. But (I venture to suggest) nothing can be as perfectly good as God. God IS, all the rest isn't unless He keeps it ticking over. And (again, I'm spekkerlatin' here) in the moral sphere such imperfection is the possibility of moral evil - which is actualized when our first parents violate the proper relationship with their Creator and the source of their breath. Biologically they die later on, but they start dying right then, when they hear the voice of the Lord and they HIDE from that the hearing of which would fill the redeemed with joy. Spiritual, moral, physical death, in one handy package!

So this is scarcely a disagreement with what you said.

But then, as I contemplate a coming dentist appointment, I remember that, I don't care what you say, beyond a certain point pain is an evil, even if, like the pain of the rabies injections which kept me from becoming truly a Mad Dawg, it is an evil in the service of a good. No shots in the behind in Heaven (I trust.) And are you suggesting that if, either per impossibile or by an amazing act of God's grace, all humanity turned to God, I wouldn't have needed that chubby but cute nurse to pierce my gluteus maximus 5 times(!) to my not inconsiderable (embarrassment and) discomfort?

The "knowing isn't causing" line is the stock defense against saying that since God sees what I'm going to do, He somehow caused it. That's all. On it's face it's unarguable. But faces aren't everything.

[kosta50]

I think I could say for both the RC and EO that a clear indication someone is not a saint is that they claim to be

Well put. Real saints are too humble to concern themselves with their sainthood. In their eyes, they are the last people on earth who deserve such an honor.

[Blogger]

Salvifically we have already been justified, are being sanctified, and will be glorified before God. It's over. Done. Jesus did it. We are saved. Can't lose it. Won't lose it. Because the Father gave us to Christ and Christ will lose none of us.

Where the works of the Christian are judged is at the judgment seat of Christ. We aren't judged for our sins because Christ took our judgment and there is no more judgment for our sins. Christ's work was sufficient. Our works are judged for reward. Those things which were done with poor motivation will be burned up. Those things done for the glory of God will bring a reward. We will then take those rewards and give them to the only one deserving of them- Jesus Himself.

The lost are judged for their works salvifically. Their sin debt has not been paid. They reject Christ and must pay the debt themselves. There will be degrees of punishment in Hell (it will be better for that day for Sodom and Gomorrah than for one who caused these little ones to stumble) and works will play into that.

But Works do not save us and the full testimony of Paul is in total agreement with that. It is NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast. Paul couldn't get any clearer than that yet in order to maintain the false notion that they can help save themselves Roman Catholics insist on ignoring that testimony and pushing fables.

Christ's salvation was a gift. If we do one thing to contribute to it it isn't a gift any more, it is recompense. That is not what Romans 4:4 says: "Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt."
Oh, a cherry picker too, and not a very careful one. That is a big fat rotten cherry you picked. Look what it says. I'll paraphrase in non-KJV English - Now, for him who works for his salvation, the reward he gets isn't because of grace but because God owes it to him. In other words, It isn't a gift, it is recompense. Romans 4:5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin...16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Also, who obeys the law fully? If you have offended in one point you are guilty of the whole.(James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.) We are all guilty of breaking God's law. God doesn't compromise. Guilty is the verdict. The penalty must be paid. Jesus paid it.

Paul's suffering for the church was not salvific towards them but so that they might hear the gospel and be saved. There were no righteous deeds that Paul did imputed to the account of the church for the church's salvation. Paul suffered as part of the inheritance of Christians who WILL suffer for the faith. Christ, through his body the church, does suffer persecution. Paul was fulfilling that lot in his life as a Christian. Paul was not suffering so that good works could be imputed to someone. None of our works, none of other peoples works, none of the Saints works contribute to declaring us righteous. Rather, the blood of Christ alone cleanses us from all sin and we are declared righteous because of Christ.

Roman Catholicism's view demotes the sacrifice of Christ and substitutes the same old same old (our works merit us something salvific) that all man-made religions foist upon the world. It does not understand the distance between the holiness of God and the righteousness of man. It sees something good in man when Scripture says there is NONE GOOD. It says our righteousness can be meritorious when Scripture says it is filthy rags. It has eyes to see but can not see that the true distance between man's works and God's holiness is the distance of infinity.

In Christ alone I glory. Catholics glory in Jesus, Mary, the Saints, the Popes, the Priests, the Church Fathers, Aunt Mary Elizabeth, and the self. It is another gospel, Jo Kus. Another gospel altogether.

[Blogger]

The Holy Spirit is my judge. I do not fear His verdict. Christ alone. Grace alone. Faith alone. Scripture alone.

[kosta50]

I like your sense of humor. But I like even more what your mind says.

Whether I am a pita or not is irrelevant. What is relevant that yes, if by a miracle, mankind were to turn to God, corruption would cease. People who turned to God have been cured of cancer, and God Himself raised people who died. I think that rabies could just as easily be retired.

[Quix]

TO WHOM?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I take it now that what I call salvation is more different from theosis than I had thought."

Is it what you call "sanctification"? ... What do you mean by ["saved"]? Is it a one time "You're saved" event? What happens after that and finally, you've mentioned the "sinner's prayer". All prayer here on earth is the prayer of sinners, but I suspect you mean something quite specific. Yes?

To the best of my knowledge, sanctification and theosis would be very similar in process, but potentially different in significance.

I could see myself using the word "saved" in a couple of different ways. Outside of time, I could relate it to predestination. Once God chose His elect before time, for all intents and purposes they were "saved" right then, in the sense that the only destination possible for them was Heaven.

The much more common sense of the word (for us) is during physical life. Throwing out exceptions for abortion victims, etc., all of us start out growing up on a one-way track to hell. (Isn't that sweet? :) We are all "lost". At any time during the life of an elect, God will grace that person with saving grace. The result of that grace will always be true faith, 100% of the time.

The result of that faith, and soon following, will be that the person will give himself over to Christ as Savior and Lord. At that one moment in time, we say that the person has become "saved". That is, from that moment forward, he is on a one-way track to Heaven. (God put us on a different one-way track.) This is why it is very important to distinguish whether one is referencing within time or outside of time. Outside of time, all the elect are predestined, but nobody knows it. Within time, once the elect are saved, they DO know it (or can know it).

So, in the human experience, salvation is a one-time event and is irrevocable in reality. The doctrine of POTS says that all of the works-related requirements (in very general terms) of the saved in scripture WILL be done by the saved, under the promises of God in the scriptures. God is the guarantor.

Now, the method of one giving over his life to Christ as Savior and Lord is almost always accomplished by some equivalent to the "sinner's prayer". There is no particular form that must be used, but a few ideas should be covered. Among them are the reckoning of one's sinfulness, the understanding of the need for Christ, and the true desire for Christ to come into the person's life as Lord. I have seen dozens of perfectly good versions of the prayer, and here is one:

"Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as Lord and Savior. In Jesus' name, Amen."

Of course, if this is faked (or is otherwise insincere), it doesn't count. Only God and the person can know which it is.

What we call sanctification begins at the moment of an effectual sinner's prayer. At this moment, the Holy Spirit indwells and God really gets to 'continuing the good work He began in us'. It is like theosis in that it is the rest-of-your-life-process of conforming oneself to the image of Christ. It is fully directed and controlled by the Holy Spirit. I see sanctification as a necessary, meaning it MUST and always happens, aspect of salvation. Sanctification among believers will vary in levels of development according to the will of the Spirit.

I hope this at least gets the ball rolling, and please ask for any follow-up. :)

[Alamo-Girl]

Are any of you ordained clergy? Confirmed laity?

I will offer you no credentials beyond my testimony. Please see for yourself whether my life evidences the gifts of Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control. (Gal 5)

If any of those are missing (Matt 7, good tree/good fruit) - then by all means, ignore me.

Truly if a person says "listen to me because I am ordained or confirmed or whatever" he is changing the focus from God to himself - and that can never end well.

[Quix]

INDEED

Though I have, on occasion, found some who were still works in progress on one or more gifts of Holy Spirit to be worth listening to as long as I was grounded in The Word and listening foremost to Holy Spirit affirming or disconfirming what I was hearing from the mortal.

[Alamo-Girl]

No doubt there are pearls of wisdom from strange sources:

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. - John 11:49-53

Nevertheless, I will stick with the Fruits of the Spirit test (Matt 7, Gal 5) as it has been very effective for me.