'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/

[Quix]

Because of my high respect for you and appreciation for you, I will do as you ask.

[Quix]

That's pretty reasonable.

[Mad Dawg]

Dude: We're cool. Just quit mixing the chopped up limbs of Cat'lick babies with your church picnic fried chicken and their blood in the sweet tea, that's all I ask.

For my part, I'll pledge to quit sneaking into Protestant homes and making off with their wimmins.

[Blogger]

I'm not saying, when I say God is your secretary, that He is your inferior. I'm saying that you couldn't communicate at all or with anyone whatsoever without His sustaining the act at every level, physical and metaphysical and psychological, and in every other way that it needs support.
Mad Dawg. This argument is silly. I can fully believe in God's sovereign sustainment of humanity without labeling him a "Secretary." And, you know that I do believe in these things so the line of questioning here is fruitless.

I thought it was the Calvinists who were all about the Sovereignty of God, but now you seem to be in position of saying that communication can happen without God's help.
Uh, where did I say this? Nowhere. I live and breathe and have my being in God Almighty. I am saved by His Sovereign will. Do not be mistaken. I am fully aware that I am NOTHING without the direct and sovereign agency of God.

I understand you to say that it is remarkable that communications to Mary would be assisted by the Lord. I'm saying EVERY communication at all times is assisted by the Lord, and no communication would ever happen without him.
No, MadDawg, you are switching the subject is what you are doing. You are trying to take it from a "Communication with the dead [including Mary] is unbiblical" to "God makes communication with Mary possible." You haven't proven the middle step. First, it has to be biblical, which it is not. Second, it has to show up in Scripture as something that we are supposed to do. Considering that Paul was writing to an audience physically living on earth when he said Intercede, I don't believe you have a case that the Saints who have gone to heaven intercede. Third, God has to make it possible that all of those saints can hear, discern, understand all the people that are speaking to them - which is something that you have theorized but have not proven.

If that is not scriptural, then I am not scriptural. But you sound like a deist here - God wound up the communication mechanism and turned it loose? - and I know that's not true, that you're not a Deist.
Yes, you know that is not true. I dont' see anything that I said that would lead you to believe that I have any deistic thoughts either.

So then you make the equivalence that if we say God enables communication with Mary then we are making God Mary's secretary.

And rather than dispute that, I run with it. (Would it be better if I said volunteer secretary, or if you had?)
No, because it still creates a rather odd scenario. We communicate with Mary. Mary can't hear it so Jesus takes the message. Mary gets the message and then tells Jesus what it was. Now, if you had said that God gave Mary omniscience, then he is no longer her secretary. You have other issues, but he isnt' a secretary. Would it be okay or at least pardonable if I characterized the Calvinist view as God as a puppet master controlling everything for his amusement, saving some puppets but throwing others into fire, like a spoiled emperor pulling the wings off of flies, or a Spartan killing a Helot just for the, uh, Helot of it? It wouldn't be okay with ME if I did that.
You can characterize God's Sovereignty as you wish. But be aware, Paul already dealt with the objections in Romans 9 and God Himself did so at the end of the book of Job.

And again, you all think that God is in time and changeable. We don't. He serves. He has always served. That's what Sovereigns do. Tyrants dominate. That's why people hate tyrants and love their good kings. They don't serve out of compulsion, but out of wisdom and love.
Earthly kings are given their authority by the people. They do not necessarily serve either. They do as they wish, sometimes to the benefit of the people sometimes to the detriment. God always works things for the good of His people. This does not mean that He is the people's servant. His actions are that of a benefactor. But it is 100% His will and plan, not ours.

As to the rest, we take seriously the saying: Áãáðçôïé, íõí ôåêíá èåïõ åóìåí, êáé ïõðù åöáíåñùèç ôé åóïìåèá. ïéäáìåí ïôé åáí öáíåñùõç ïìïéïé áèôù åóïìåèá, ïôé ïøïìåèá êáèùó åóôéí. we shall be like Him (I John 3:2) And, come to think of it, "..greater things than these ..." We take the promises very seriously indeed, and rejoice in them.
And, we take seriously the first part of the verse as well...it doth not yet appear what we shall be. We don't know what form our Christ-likeness will be. We don't know that we will be omniscient as He is omniscient. We shouldn't presume what Scripture doesn't tell us.

[Quix]

LOL.

I think.

[Ping-Pong]

I thought more about your reply and question one of your statements.

"Likewise, Christ accepts seven different churches in
Revelation 2:3."

I read through the chapter again and still can't see where Christ accepted the seven churches. To me, He is admonishing five of them to change their ways. He tells them their good points and yet warns them to repent. In 2:17 He tells them they must overcome to eat of the "hidden manna".

The only 2 he approves of are Smyrna and Philadelphia. He expects the churches that truly follow Him to teach what they taught.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Mad Dawg]

LOL.

Funny, that's what the Protestant wimmins do when I try to sneak into their houses and make off with them.

It's extremely damaging to the self-esteem, I assure you.

[Quix]

Perhaps it would be less so if you trimmed your beard slightly.

Or else washed the left-overs out of the ends a little more often.

[DungeonMaster]

Nor it in any of the things you quote. It's a trumped up charge. I think the Bible has something about that in it somewhere. Try arguing against what we do believe, not what we don't

I know the things I quoted are not in the bible. If they were I wouldn't have such a problem with them.

The bible has no such thing in it when it comes to non biblical doctrines.

[DungeonMaster]

I'm beginning to see how this works: One can post anything insulting and contemptuouos about the faith of another as long as it's done by exchanging such posts with another "compadre" but avoiding making it ad hominem to a particular poster. The results are the same but there are no consequences. It can be called "trash the faith but not the faithful". I believe it actually ends up not changing any minds at all, so it all seems counter-productive.

It's a two way street. I'm quite used to be calling a self interpreter and a schismatic and a bible idolater.

[Religion Moderator]

Attributing violent motives to other Freepers is hate speech. It is also "making it personal."

[Quix]

It's a two way street. I'm quite used to be calling a self interpreter and a schismatic and a bible idolater.

= = = =

Right.

And I mostly don't have a BIG problem with that. It's just when the thin skins and double standard stuff gets shrill that I get real annoyed.

And, of course, I am grieved and annoyed at anything I see which corrupts, flies in the face of the basic Core Gospel and God's high 10 Commandment priorities.

But we have to have labels to have efficient discussion. That's fine with me. I can even handle fierce and pointed labels from the opposition with amazing calmness . . . providing they do the same.

[Quix]

I keep saying the meaning he gives to the quote is not in the quote and you keep saying, more or less, "It's not in the Bible, and you guys should stop believing that glory can only come to God through the Virgin.

We can't stop saying it because we never started! Sheesh!
= = =

Yes and no. It is inherently there in the language of that little card. It is not an off the wall inference. It is there in the language. Yes, it can be argued that it's not explicitly there. But I'd say it comes across to me pretty close to explicitly there.

But as an ESL teacher and a shrink . . . I'm not an off the wall idiot for saying it's there in the language of that card.

It's SOMEWHAT valid, imho, to say it's not explicitly in the card.

Taking all the probable--inferences--not even including the possible ones--just the probable ones--it's definitely there.

Any panel of neutral linguists from Mars would assert the same thing. Add in the sociologists and psycholinguists . . . and the argument thickens. imho.


MD, from our perspective, we SEE, HEAR, TOUCH . . . a plethera of evidence--piles and piles of it which point to massive flocks of ducks . . . and no small amount of processed duck food.

And when we talk about the ducks and the duck feathers and the flying, waddling, swimming, and God-forbid--the duck poop--then there's great furor about how unfair we're being.

Those aren't ducks THEY'RE TEAL! HARUMPH. Oh, well, excuse me!

Or those aren't duck feathers, they were at a costume party and borrowed some geese feathers. Oh, well, that explains everything.

There's a million and one rationalizations for calling the ducks anything but what they obviously are. And, SOMETIMES, to SOME degree, the rationalizations are SOMEWHAT defensible to a point.

But not really. And not foundationally and certainly not in function and effect; in psychology; in spirituality and sociologically. Just doesn't wash on even the most cursory of closer analyses.

And I say this with a LOT of affinity for individual Roman believers and even for the group as a whole . . . but my spirit within and Holy Spirit within will not be silent on this enormously horrid distraction at best and idolatry wholesale detracting wholesale from God Almighty and His pure and simple Gospel.

And, I still LUB

[The_Reader_David]

Nope, sorry, this one is Biblical:

2nd Peter, "become partakers of the divine nature"

And Christ's own commentary on the Psalms, "'I have said ye are gods,' and the Scripture cannot be annulled."

Or are you suggesting not that the Church's understanding of salvation is not grounded in her Scriptures, but that the certitude that the Blessed Virgin Mary is among the saved is 'extra-Biblical'?

[Quix]

2nd Peter, "become partakers of the divine nature"

Ahhhhh . . . and then the wild haired inferences and extrapolations begin. I read that verse and praise God for it. But I have no exhaustive, precise understanding of what exactly it means and doesn't mean. And neither does any other mortal currently. To insist that one can construe it in an exclusively RC meaning way to support all kinds of Marian nonsense is a leap across Mars biggest canyon on a pogo stick after 24 cans of beer.

And Christ's own commentary on the Psalms, "'I have said ye are gods,' and the Scripture cannot be annulled."

Oh, and this mystery is now pinned down as totally and exclusively proving Mary's elevation to godhead!? Hogwash. Unless every other believer is elevated to the SAME level. In which case, prayers to her and adoration of her a la what has resulted is must be admitted to be an arbritrary addition to one individual vs all the possible others.

Personally, I don't know what the mystery in that Scripture is all about. It clearly is not crucial to understand that Scripture to live my Christian life and arrive in eternity with God The Father. I figure eternity is enough time to grow into whatever that means. I certainly have no compulsion to build a huge tradition encrusted castle on that toothpick of a Scripture.

Or are you suggesting not that the Church's understanding of salvation is not grounded in her Scriptures, but that the certitude that the Blessed Virgin Mary is among the saved is 'extra-Biblical'?

I don't have a real problem ASSUMING that Mary was Saved. There's every reason to believe she was from all the Scriptural evidence and no Scriptural or logical evidence to think she was not Saved.

But jumping from THOSE sparse facts to all the panolpy of Marian encrusted adoration, veneration and thinly veiled worship is a huge and hazardous leap.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for pinging me to this sidebar, but truly I do not wish to participate beyond pointing out the obvious - namely that we will be judged in the same manner and measure we judge others, so we all ought to be very careful both with what we say and with what we think.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. - Matt 7:1-5

[Mad Dawg]

You are trying to take it from a "Communication with the dead [including Mary] is unbiblical" to "God makes communication with Mary possible." In all seriousness, I was just responding to one thing you said. I am not trying to prove the over all contention. You made the secretary crack. I responded to it. That's all. I didn't claim that my work with that comment proved the whole case. I said nothing about the whole question.

You said something like "That makes Jesus Mary's secretary." I responded. and now you say I am switching the subject. It is if you were saying, NOT only is it unbiblical and preposterous on a thousand other grounds, but it makes Jesus Mary's secretary. And I address everything after the but, and nothing else. I wasn't responding to everything you ever said, or even some other things you ever said. I wasn't saying it was Biblical. I wasn't saying it was free of any other objections. I was responding to one thing and only one thing.

First, it has to be biblical, which it is not. Second, it has to show up in Scripture as something that we are supposed to do.

Sez you. That's your canon of proof, not mine, which is why I wasn't addressing that. I was only addressing your comment about Jesus being Mary's secretary. (And as far as I'm concerned, even by your canon I would sya it has to show up as something we MAY do - or as somethng that is explicitly forbidden -- and then we could argue about the state of the "Departed" since the resurrection.

No, because it still creates a rather odd scenario. We communicate with Mary. Mary can't hear it so Jesus takes the message. Mary gets the message and then tells Jesus what it was.

leaving aside questions about the operation of various persons of the Trinity, that's how I think ALL communication takes place. It wouldn't be exceptional for communication with the saints in heaven to take place that way. It would be normal (stipulating arguendo that such communication takes place at all.)

Now, if you had said that God gave Mary omniscience, then he is no longer her secretary.

Not even then. Mary could never have omniscience "in her own right". If we want to use time language about it, then we would say that IF God gave Mary omniscience, He would maintain it, preserve it, operate it for her at every infinitessimal quantum of time. He is the factotum and the facsemper.

God always works things for the good of His people. This does not mean that He is the people's servant. His actions are that of a benefactor. But it is 100% His will and plan, not ours.

OH. I'm getting it. You're on the "obedience" side of "Servant" I'm on the "service" side. God is not obedient to the people (which God forbid!), He is not their servant to boss around. He is their servant in that He serves them , and commands them to join Him in service to one another. In His perfect self-disclosure He comes among us as one who serves.

We don't know that we will be omniscient as He is omniscient.

Again: I am very open to the concept that there are people, much less saints in heaven and angels, who know more than I do about what's going on and any number of things. I do not think therefore they are omniscient. Saying that Mary can handle a bunch of incoming and outgoing calls is not equivalent to saying she is omniscient an domnipotent. I don't think any RC theologian attributes omniscience to Mary, but I could be wrong. "Like" is not the same as "same" (even in Greek. ) And she could me "pluriscient" and "pluripotent" without being omniscient or omnipotent. "Greater things than these ...."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and your question!

For all of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3, Christ declares their special challenges, praises them for what they are doing well and admonishes them for their failings. And then He speaks to those who overcome, blessings. So whereas the church as a whole may not be blessed, the individual believers may be. Take Ephesus for example:

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. - Rev 2:1-7

[Quix]

TRUE. TRUE.

Thanks for the reminder/exhortation.