'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

DE: We have been judged. We now stand acquitted before God by the obedience and justification of Jesus Christ upon the cross

klossg: You say by this and back it up with some scripture ...Based on that, what is your interpretation of Heb 10:26-29,35,36? - "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

The writer of Hebrews was writing, well, to the Hebrews. There is a mixture of them just like there would be a mixture of people who call themselves "Christian" in church. There are some believers the Messiah had come, some fence sitters, and some people who you really have doubt about.

That being said, Hebrews 10 is an altar call. The writer states:

Hbr 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

He is calling the Hebrews to come to embrace Christ. Of course, this raises the question how one would interpret "in full assurance of faith" if they do not believe in assurance.

BTW-Hebrews is difficult to piece meal together, IMO, because the book must be read in context from start to finish for understanding. The writer switches from evangelism to teaching in several cases depending upon the audience.

After reading Schroeder and the reply you gave on this thread I find I have learned much, however I don't agree with all of it. As he said, "it's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out" and it sounds as if we all have our shovels in our hands.

When Schroder talks abour Rosh Hashana commemorating the creation of the soul of human life, from the creation of the soul of Adam he assumes that was on the 6th day. My reading of Gen.2:7 is that Adam, The Man Adam, was an 8th day creation. All the races, (man-mankind) were created on the 6th day and "created He him; male and female created He them."

Adam was not created but was formed (I don't really know what the difference is but that phrase is there for a reason) and Eve was not brought into being at the same time he was, as those were in 1:27.

In his paragraphs on "Natural history and human history" he states that Nachmanides considers the "days of old" as the 6 days of creation while the "years of many generations" is all the time of Adam forward. I believe the "Days of old" are from the first age of our earth. That was the age in which Satan rebelled and took 1/3 of God's children with him.

I love Schroeder's take on the Six Days and I believe those "days" are represented by the 1,000 years as stated in Psalms and Peter. My problem with that has always been the "morning and evening" if they were not actual days, even Lord's days of 1000 years. I didn't realize that the text stated "day one" instead of "the first day".

In his "What is a day" paragraphs,it was very interesting to see the Talmud explains darkness as black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it, or darkness, the absence of light. This light is Christ and God divided light from the darkness, Christ from evil, Satan. He later states that the literal meaning of evening is "there was disorder". That chaos was Satan.

Another thought is that I don't believe the "Sages" should have excluded the six days of creation from the calendar or said that the entire text is parable. As far as reading Genesis 1 with God as the observer, not man - why, as it is written to man.

Please go deeper into why you believe Adam was created in heaven and placed in the garden. It stated that he was formed in the garden and all of our souls are from the spiritual realm, so I don't understand.

Your belief of "Therefore children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, all things shall be accomplished" I also believe. We're there now and only waiting to have all of God's elect sealed. Your comments here help that process.

Now, I'm going to read more Schroeder. I'll never understand the physics but he does write in a manner that promotes understanding - thank you so much for telling me about him.

The writer of Hebrews was speaking to believers, encouraging them through what must have been tremendous trials and strife. He acknowledges that if anyone falls away, they were not of God in the first place.

The lost voices of the world want you and I to believe that our salvation is in flux, impermanent, unaccomplished once for all time. They want us frightened and obedient to those on earth who barter our sureness. Don't let them fool you. Christ died on the cross to pay for every sin every believer ever has or will ever commit, and He rose from the dead to prove it all true.

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." -- Romans 5:8-11

Do you doubt Christ died for you? Do you doubt Christ paid for your sins? Do you doubt you are saved by His reconciling you to God? Do you doubt you have received His merciful atonement?

If not, then rejoice. Be grateful for your faith which is by Christ and for Christ and through Christ. Preach the knowledge of Christ risen. Raise your children to kneel to none but Christ.

And never doubt the debt has been paid in full by His grace alone.

"That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee." -- Proverbs 22:19
"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." -- Hebrews 7:22

It seems that you are proposing that assurance of one's salvation ... or belief that one's salvation cannot be lost ... somehow negates any motivation such christians might have toward sanctification ... or service. It sounds like you feel that christians need some sort of 'Sword of Damocles' (i.e. the threat of loss of one's salvation) ... to motivate them to live christian lives.

If this were the case ... then Protestant churches would be empty ... because noone would bother to come and/or render their service ... because they don't get anything (salvific) out of it.

Well, you have certainly given me some food for thought. I cannot answer on the motivation on why those who believe in "OSAS" continue to fellowship. I will not rule out that they do so for the same reasons that Catholics do. We all love Christ and we experience Him through the fellowship of like minded individuals.

My point, however, remains. That is - that sanctification is not an important issue in OSAS theology BECAUSE justification is completed and not ongoing. There is no point for perseverance in such a scenario. There is no need to be exhorted towards being virtuous. While such people may become virtuous by Christ's abiding presence, it is a secondary consideration and theologically unimportant to the whole idea of justification and salvation - since it is already done.

I don't live and serve as a christian to attain (or to hold onto) my salvation ... I live and serve as a christian because God is my Father ... and I wish to please Him. Also His love has been infused into me ... and it is only natural ... that I share it.

Please do not think I am attacking you! I had already presumed the above. My musings are over the whole concept of OSAS and its theological implications for the believer and their subsequent way of life.

My actions (work) stem from my faith. Faith is the key. If I were to give up my faith (as is postulated in Hebrews 6) ... then my works would reflect that loss (or repudiation) of faith.

So long as I have saving faith, ... my works will reflect that faith.

Agree. As such, when one's works are "bad" or "sinful", can we presume that that person's faith is failing or faulty? Can [that] faith save him? (James 2:14) And thus, if salvation is already a done deal, how can we read James' rhetorical question? To me, salvation is NOT done in the distant past, but is ongoing. Initial justification is the first step towards the Kingdom, not the end.

Again, I thank you for your cordial replies. I prefer discussing such issues with people who do not become upset if I do not interpret the Scriptures the exact same way that they do.

Regards

The lost voices of the world want you and I to believe that our salvation is in flux, impermanent, unaccomplished once for all time. They want us frightened and obedient to those on earth who barter our sureness.

What? Are you paranoid? If you feel you are OSAS then what does it matter what others think? And if OSAS would it matter if you were weak like the human you are and thought wrongly that you weren't AS? Is that a sin in your book? And if it is, who cares we are AS. I could realign my logic in time - sin is all gone.

Christ died on the cross to pay for every sin every believer ever has or will ever commit, and He rose from the dead to prove it all true.

True. Christ takes away sin and died for us. Without Christ's life, death and resurrection, we'd be utter slaves to sin with no hope. Who is trying to fool me on this? The Catholic church does not teach that sin is forgiven through any other than Christ. Were you taught that Catholics believe something else? What makes you think this? Let me assure you that all Catholics know this from the Church, the Bible and Tradition.

Do you doubt Christ died for you?

No. Why would you ask such a question? I am a Catholic. Do you feel you are talking to a Muslim or Jew?

Do you doubt Christ paid for your sins?

No. I simply asked you your interpretation of Heb 10 because you act as if the sins you commit after you have received the Gospel do not impact your relationship with Christ. You act as if you are 100% spirit and once you know something your entire soul never fails to act as Christ would want a Child of God to act. You write to me like I have never seen the bible or been baptized or rejoiced in Christ's love. Please come to understand the fullness and goodness of the Catholic faith because your understanding is not correct. I'd like it if we could discuss this "touchy" subject in all frankness, not to paint each other into a false corner but to learn and commune as Christ would want.

I do not agree with your interpretation. It is not as clear as you say. We are not spirits only and the Bible does not back up the way you see it 100%.

How about Mt 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

OPEN CONFESSIONAL. Feel free to assign penances (is that the term?) or whatever feels fitting . . .

For the record . . .

I don't have any trouble with any Christian seeking to love what God loves and hate what God hates.

I don't even have THAT much trouble with any two of us being 180 degrees on what it is we think God hates and loves . . . particularly if we arrive at such convictions out of an earnest, good faith sort of start, motivation, goal.

I don't hate individuals. I really don't. I've seen enough of my own crud . . . there's no point. Besides, it's not what Father does and I'd rather become more like Him vs less. I really would.

I do hate . . . destructive structures, deceptions of satan etc. as supposedly all Christians do. And, I don't mind, that much, that my holy of holies might be some other believer's 'hell in a hand basket on a fast freight.'

I used to be every bit as fussed up, obsessive compulsive, starchy, prissy, long-pointy-school-marm-fingered; self-righteous, haughty, stern, harsh, thin-skinned; know-it-all-y; judgmental; vengeful; angry; ALWAYS RIGHT; . . . the list went on and shamefully on . . .

as anyone here and no doubt far worse than most if not than all.

And it never achieved any of my 'lofty' goals. Almost always the opposite.

I could go into all the psychodynamic stuff involved but that's not all that critical to this confessional pontification.

I was still racked with the above 'qualities' when I worked at a human relations project in San Diego ran by chaplains. CREDO. We took Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard personnel and on different weekends, their spouses up to the WMCA ranch house in Julian Thurs through Sunday and messed over their minds wholesale.

Was a great program. We really helped lower enlisted and officer and higher of both learn to hear and communicate with one another much more effectively. Commands which had even say 15-25% of their personnel go to the workshops had less sick days out; less AWOL; more reenlistments etc. And a LOT of families were changed much for the better.

I was always paired with ORF. ORF was a chaplain psychologist but a pretty mild mannered sort. I was his side-kick because I could be counted on to stir the pot good and proper and then some. And all our 14 workshops went well, very well, very productive. And that felt good.

Down in San Diego, across from the Star of India on the Wharf, we also had groups that I ran and some participated in. Amongst them, our staff meetings were also group process amongst our 10 member staff. That would be about 5 or so chaplains and the rest of us enlisted and civilian types.

Welllllll, I was always happy to process or be on the hot seat . . . and virtually no one else was eager to . . . so 90+% of the time, staff meetings were shred, wash, spin dry/make-over-Quix time.

A lot of time, at the ranch house or down on the wharf, folks would jab me good and sharply, deeply with what was supposedly humor but which I didn't understand or didn't relate to as humor at all. But they were laughing.

And in a lot of the staff meetings, the hostility toward my Evangelical self-righteousness etc. was fierce. There was enormous pressure to capitulate, conform, become LIKE THEM.

That never happened.

But I did learn a lot . . . SOME OF IT ON REFLECTION, LONG AFTER.

I knew that at least some of them really did care for me in spite of their anger, hostility, satire etc.

AND SOME OF THEIR SATIRE REALLY CAUSED ME TO PRODUCTIVELY PONDER. Of course I prayed about all the above all the time. But some of that satire was just tooooo much--tooooo something to dismiss easily. The barb stuck in deep and solidly and wouldn't leave me alone sometimes for months or even years in some respects.

And, certainly, not all the satire was lovingly motivated. Some just hated me and my self-righteousness and would have been happy to have literally ground me up and fed me to the sharks in the bay. I had it coming. I was a real prig.

But God was not finished with me yet. He saw to it that all those satiracle barbs, practical "jokes," blatant assaults were used for my good. I probably gained another PhD's worth of education and growth from them.

One of the biggest things I learned was that . . . don't sweat it. None of us gets out alive in our flesh anyway. All flesh stinks. Let it die. Bury it. Plant flowers. Don't visit.

I learned that humor and even satire, often especially satire . . . can sling in, zap in some truth between the armor plates in ways that nothing else can.

And, that even IF someone was ruthlessly satirical deliberately at my expense--even with great malice and aforethought--I COULD PROBABLY LEARN A LOT FROM PRAYERFULLY PODNERING IT--EVEN IF WHAT I LEARNED was not always all about me.

And all of it taught me a lot more about taking myself and most of life with a grain of salt; a lot more humor; a lot more of a Snoopy dance and a SO WHAT attitude. Not in a blindly dismissive or clueless way--at least mostly most of the time not so--but in a--so what is the big deal--we are all human. We are all flawed. We are all works in progress. We can all learn and grow. And we all frequently have egg or worse on our faces and ought to learn to laugh about it. Laugh AND LEARN. But at least laugh. Life is too short not to laugh.

I'm sure I've laughed at a lot of satire, practical jokes etc. that the perpetrators were convinced I was an IQ30 clueless idiot who didn't understand how badly I'd just been skewered, insulted and put down.

But they didn't know that I'd prayed virtually all my life to be able to put myself in the other person's skin and to see what they saw and feel what they felt. And, many times, even if the goal was to assault me ruthlessly, there was often something about the perspective of the perpetrator's that I could find funny about me and truly laugh at it.

I also learned along the way about satire . . . even ruthless, fierce satire . . . that it can stick sufficiently in the muscle of my mind to bring healthy fruit for months and even years afterwards. It's less likely to be dismissed and forgotten so easily, so quickly. All the more so if it triggers a lot of emotions.

And, accordingly, I've had many, many people come back to me and say, Quix, I hated it when you . . . . I could have killed you. But years later, God showed me you were right. I was wrong. And you helped me and my family relationships from that forever more once I woke up enough to pay attention to what you were really getting at. I hated you for 3 years for what you'd said and that biting satirical way you said it. But slowly the light began to dawn because I couldn't forget it.

That's why I take the risks. That's why I bother. I know what that kind of growth is like in my own life and in the lives of many dozens of others.

Do I miss it? Am I flawed in all such. Sure. I haven't found Enoch's chariot yet. But my heart is to do good. I'm not interested in anyone bleeding to death.

I'd actually MUCH RATHER NO ONE even be slightly offended. That's my natural bent. I'm even still ENOUGH of a people pleaser that I'd PREFER that everyone think all my words were golden dew drops and my person the picture of Christian charity and graciousness. But that's not really my brief and I'm now OK with that as I've written hereon elsewhere.

I just know that I'm my own best . . . tool . . . in a lot of respects . . . in the sense that . . . God uses all of me in surprising ways time and time again. And who am I to say no.

Therefore what hereon, I'll have to continue to pray about. I'm certainly not into hate except hating satan and his works.

But I can honestly and genuinely say it is easy for me to love every FREEPER on here--even those who hate my guts. I only want good for them as well as everyone else hereon.

I have learned that sometimes Love comes in very funny packages.

Thanks for the chance to share this confessional pontification,

LUB

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.