'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]

I’m not tracking somehow.

How was the promise of the birth of Isaace fulfilled in Christ?

[Blogger]

That was my bad. I misread your statement as promises to Abraham that were fulfilled, period.

[Blogger]

That was my bad. I misread your statement as promises to Abraham that were fulfilled, period.

[Blogger]

That was my bad. I misread your statement as promises to Abraham that were fulfilled, period.

[Quix]

No sweat.

But these REPLACEMENTARIANS have to be nailed to The Scriptures every time . . . their erroneous hogwash can fool a lot of half awake lurkers, otherwise.

[kosta50]

Kosta: Then we are helpless and hopeless

FK: Yes, by ourselves, that's exactly right

We were created in His image and given dominion on earth. He created us in His likeness so that we may be reasonable, merciful and moral beings, not helpless morons.

That we use those blessings to condemn ourselves to hell is not His, but our choosing. We can equally choose to cleave to God and be saved. It's a choice, for the wicked do not seek after God (cf Ps 10:4).

If all God does is offer, and leaves it up to us to save ourselves, then He doesn't care which of us is saved, or which become His children. He is turning His back and washing His hands of the decision. I think God cares much more than that

God offers His saving grace to all because He desires to have all men saved (cf 1 Tim 2:4), and He does not desire or delight in death (perdition) even of the wicked (cf Eze 18:23) or anyone for that matter (cf Eze 18:32).

It is a Christian hope (faith) that He is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (cf 1 Tim 4:10), and that the grace of God brings salvation to all men (cf Titus 2:11) [who will come to Him], for God would have none perish but rather have all come to repentance (cf 2 Pet 3:9).

He offers to everyone, not only some, precisely because He loves everyone, even the wicked. For the scripture leaves no doubt that God is impartial (cf Deu 10:17, 2 Chr 19:7, Act 10:34, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, Eph 6:9 Col 3:25, 1 Pet 1:17)

[kosta50]

Sorry, I thought I sent that to NYer. :) But welcome back anyway! :)

[AlbionGirl]

That’s a great quote from TR.

TR was a great man. He was referred to as a 'steam roller in trousers', and he is one of my favorite Presidents.

Italian history is interesting too. About the time we were having our civil war, Giuseppe Garibald, Giuseppe Mazzini and Camillo di Cavour were at work trying to unify Italy.

The geography of Italy is such that each region, even each little town to a large degree is separated by difficult terrain. There were many different dialects among the separated regions and I'm not sure there ever was or even is to this day a sense of nationhood as we understand it.

Garibaldi was a combination of Techumsa Sherman and Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was responsible for winning most of the military victories during the period known as the Risorgimento (resurrection). He spent quite a few years in Latin America where he learned how to fight guerilla style very well. He was a good sailor and quite an iconoclast. Was ahead of his time concerning religious thought and the rights of women. And really wasn't much of a power monger. Though he was an avowed socialist and supporter of a dictatorship he did not seek power for himself, as far as I know.

He was born on the 4th of July in 1807. I think that's a interesting birth date. :)

I think he was a little like Nathan Bedford Forrest because he was topographically very astute, like Forrest was, except that Forrest was really a genius in this regard. Sherman said that if it took 10,000 men and if he had to bankrupt the treasury it would be worth the price of capturing Forrest.

Anyway check out these two pictures of Sherman and Garibaldi. Just look at Sherman's eyes. He was an amazing man.

General William Techumsa Sherman

Giuseppe Garibaldi

[kosta50]

Define “immortal”, for our souls are and we are never going to die

You are not there yet. I would be a little more cautious. [1 Pet 1:17]

[Quix]

Excellent Scriptural review . . .

There are some mysteries vis a vis

God loving everyone and not willing that any should perish but that all should come to at least the knowledge of the Truth (I Tim 2:1-5)

vs

hating those who do violence, liars etc.

. . .

free-will vs election etc.

I believe that from God’s perspective, there’s no even seeming contradiction. But our finiteness and the constraints of our finite languages limited the fullness of our understanding of God’s perspective.

But those who compulsively try and squeeze and slam uncomfortable Scriptures into their tidy tiny little boxes do Scripture violence and God’s perspective violence.

imho, of course.

[kosta50]

Thank you, Q.

There are some mysteries vis a vis God loving everyone and not willing that any should perish but that all should come to at least the knowledge of the Truth (I Tim 2:1-5)

This just shows that God wants everyone to have a choice.

vs hating those who do violence, liars etc

He loves even the wicked; He hates their lies and their violence.

[Quix]

Much agree with you about God wanting us to have A CHOICE.

There is

NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY

AND

THERE IS NO RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT AUTHENTIC FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.

[1000 silverlings]

That's because you don't believe

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

I believe that from God’s perspective, there’s no even seeming contradiction. But our finiteness and the constraints of our finite languages limited the fullness of our understanding of God’s perspective.

Indeed, either/or (Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle) does not apply to God. If one presupposes that it does, he ends up anthropomorphizing God.

[unspun]

It’s pleasant to consider that a thread in FR about the advent of our Savior ;-) lasts longer than one about the unfortunate demise of Anna Nicole Smith. :-(

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, Thank God!

[kosta50]

See, we can agree on some things! :)

[kosta50]

That's because you don't believe

Because I don't agree with you, I don't believe? God help you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." -- Psalm 139:21-22