'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/

[kosta50]

And what precisely does Job 2:1 has to do what is recorded in Job 5:1 or Psalms?

First it was meant to show that these terms are applied to angels and not to humans in Job 5:1 (the LXX says "holy angels"), just as other terms, such as in Job 2:1 the terms "sons of God" also apply to angels and not men. Second, it was meant to reiterate that nowhere in the bible does it say that all those who believe are "holy" or "saints" — except those written or influenced by +Paul, such as Acts, making it his personal innovation that no one used before or after him.

[kawaii]

interesting. i’ve never seen this.

i’ve seen crossing yourself twice, bending to kiss an icon with you hand extended toward the floor, and then crossing yourself again.

i’ve seen bending over and kneeling on the floor and putting your head to the floor, but never for mentions of mary, in fact i’ve only seen it once and that was at my parish in the past few weeks. had nothing to do with mary though.

it’s all i can do to cross myself everytime any member of the trinity is mentioned, and i’ve never crossed myself at mentions of mary. (or seen anyone do so). i try to cross myself 3 times when the trinity is mentioned, and 3 times when entering the church (and as mentioned when venerating icons)

[kawaii]

you probably should say something if only to ‘inquire’. i’d love to hear the rationale.

[kosta50]

Just factual history, not Orthodox myth

Or just factual history, not biblical myth. The principle is the same: no myth; nothing should be taken as 'fact' on pure faith. And facts don't agree with biblical or myths.

It is you who have to 'get real', no religion claims that their Founder is God

Sorry to burst your bubble agian: if God is the cause of our faith than we believe because it is God's will, not because of some prophet's desire.

no religion claims that their Founder is God and that He died for them and rose again

In that respect Christianity is unique.

Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism, it is a new faith, as it was revealed to Paul (Eph.3)

Well, +Paul certainly made it into a new religion! That much is certain!. But Christ would have disagreed: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24]

Of course, +Paul didn't know that, since he never read Matthew's Gospel, which wasn't written during his lifetime.

That has to do with the fact that the believe in God is not enough to save anyone

No, it has to do with angelic creation and they nature of their sin. They were not created in God's image and likeness and they are not tempted by flesh.

Boy, that shows how little you know of religion.

[kawaii]

i should note not only haven’t i seen this before; i attend a church which has been known as the church of the nativity of the mother of God, and the Protection of the Virgin Mary church. I’d figure f there were folks going overboard for mary it’d be here

[kosta50]

Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it

The Bible is compatible with science but not in the literal sense. Science cannot prove the Creation never happened! If anything, science can only reveal ever smore the greateness of God. Our narrow minds and fantasy tend to create myths that only distort the Creation.

He tried to show that it did not conflict with the Bible

It doesn't.

Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials

Correct. However, the Church imposed on both scholars a requirement to state that their work is mere speculation and not the way things really are (because we can never really know how things are and all that jazz...). This "disclaimer" appears in all their books at the very beginning.

Well, as it turns out, it is the way things are (as far as humans are concerned).

And where does it state anything about the moon having craters or not in the Bible?

How could it, when one cannot seen them with a naked eye? Bible authors had no way of seeing the craters or strange "appendages" (as gailleo called unresolved Saturn's rings in his small telescope).

The Church believed, however, that the sky above was the "heavens," an erroneous belief that comes straight from the Bible.

Since the Church maitained that only that which is pure/perfect can be in heaven, the 'logical' conclusion was that celestial bodies were also perfect anfd without "blemishes."

The Vatican officals were dealing with defending a RCC position, not a Biblical one

No, they were just making 'logical" conclusions based on Biblical assumptions.

There is no real evidence for anything that contradicts the Genesis account of Creation.

And your definition of "real" is?

[kosta50]

i should note not only haven’t i seen this before; i attend a church which has been known as the church of the nativity of the mother of God, and the Protection of the Virgin Mary church. I’d figure f there were folks going overboard for mary it’d be here

Again, nothing wrong with gratitude and love for the Blessed Theotokos. Kissing her icons and thanking her for giving us her Son and our Savior, and thanking her for her prayers.

But, this is just an example how our narrow minds and limited sense distort God's Creation, and how easy it is to slip, good intentions and all, into grave error of idolatry.

The early Church Fathers were all too aware of it resisted it tooth and nail while avoiding Roman persecutions at that.

We must NEVER create God in our own image, inadvertantly as it may be. We must never give a human being higher praise and reverence than to God.

[Quix]

Evidently the perspective noted is one that is convinced that

GOD ALMIGHTY—LORD AND CREATOR OF ALL THAT IS

Could not or would not ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY have

DARED

to have chosen to have spoken through Paul anything unique?

Personally, I wouldn’t

DARE

To put ALMIGHTY GOD

In such a tiny tidy little box.

[Quix]

We must NEVER create God in our own image, inadvertantly as it may be. We must never give a human being higher praise and reverence than to God.
= = =

WOW.

BRACE YOURSELF.

I 1,000% agree with the above.

OK, you can relax. The shock should subside soonish.

[kosta50]

i’ve seen crossing yourself twice, bending to kiss an icon with you hand extended toward the floor, and then crossing yourself again

I do that only to the icon of Christ, and/or a cross with Christ on it, on the icons stand. I cannot see myself prostrating for a Saint.

i’ve seen bending over and kneeling on the floor and putting your head to the floor, but never for mentions of mary, in fact i’ve only seen it once and that was at my parish in the past few weeks

That is something we do during Great Lent (the Sunday of the Cross and the Holy Thursday/Friday vespers when Christ is laid on a table and symbolically buried. There is usually the NT and a cross on top of Him, and we kiss His feet, the cross and the NT after we do the full prostration, which is some Orthodox do as the Muslims do which is incorrect). This is worship of Christ, not of any Saints.

The only time when crossing is "regulated" is when the Holy Trinity is invoked. At other times, the Orthodox cross the way the Protestants say "Praise the Lord!" or "Amen!" or when there is a strong emotional charge (as in the Divine Liturgy when the priest says petitions to care for our sick and for the wellbeing of the souls of our departed ones).

Some communities cross a lot more than others. Thus, Serbs tend to cross when incensed, or when the priest says "peace with you" etc.

When entering and leaving the church, crossing is a sign of reverence.

Kneeling is allowed on all days except between Paschal Sunday and the Pentecost (about 40 days) and on Sundays (by the decision of the First Ecumenical Council). At other times, kneeling is optional.

On the Pentecost Sunday, kneeling is part of the service, but one is never wrong standing on a Sunday (day of Resurrection; resurrected man is not sitting or kneeling the rationale goes).

[kosta50]

to have chosen to have spoken through Paul anything unique?

If anything the Lord taught all His Apostles the same unique thing.

[kawaii]

i still haven’t seen what you mention but the priest should speak up.

if our priest can tell a mixed crowd that the bishops say we should rejoin the MP and he reccomends not spliting with the bishops yours can say mary isn’t deserving of more attention than the trinity.

[Quix]

Maybe I don’t understand your point, then.

[kawaii]

I do that only to the icon of Christ, and/or a cross with Christ on it, on the icons stand. I cannot see myself prostrating for a Saint.

it was an icon of christ... sorry to not have clarified

[kawaii]

I do that only to the icon of Christ, and/or a cross with Christ on it, on the icons stand. I cannot see myself prostrating for a Saint.

er mixed up but anyway see latter

[kosta50]

I 1,000% agree with the above

Thank you. Much obliged.

[kawaii]

That is something we do during Great Lent (the Sunday of the Cross and the Holy Thursday/Friday vespers when Christ is laid on a table and symbolically buried. There is usually the NT and a cross on top of Him, and we kiss His feet, the cross and the NT after we do the full prostration, which is some Orthodox do as the Muslims do which is incorrect). This is worship of Christ, not of any Saints.

same here

[kawaii]

The only time when crossing is "regulated" is when the Holy Trinity is invoked. At other times, the Orthodox cross the way the Protestants say "Praise the Lord!" or "Amen!" or when there is a strong emotional charge (as in the Divine Liturgy when the priest says petitions to care for our sick and for the wellbeing of the souls of our departed ones).

i cross when i here the trinity or any member or feel inspired (so pretty much yeah)

[kosta50]

Oh I will bring it to his attention very soon, now that Lent is over (poor man, he was fasting on water and bread only and his cheeks were beginning cave in).

[kawaii]

Some communities cross a lot more than others. Thus, Serbs tend to cross when incensed, or when the priest says "peace with you" etc. When entering and leaving the church, crossing is a sign of reverence. Kneeling is allowed on all days except between Paschal Sunday and the Pentecost (about 40 days) and on Sundays (by the decision of the First Ecumenical Council). At other times, kneeling is optional. On the Pentecost Sunday, kneeling is part of the service, but one is never wrong standing on a Sunday (day of Resurrection; resurrected man is not sitting or kneeling the rationale goes).

true to the point it should be on a pamphlet before folks enter. ;p