Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by 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/
Wouldn't the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ solve the problem?
We don't have confirmation, but certainly every church needs to have thorough doctrinal studies. I teach Sunday school at my church and that is the whole purpose of my class. We call it the Ready Answer class. It is knowing WHY you believe what you believe. I think this topic may be one worth pursuing.
I don't really care.
The protocol is to ping those cited. When cited or responded to, you'll get pinged. It's an open forum.
I'd suggest you quit throwing around charges of "heresy" at others.
In a sense it would. But only if you define what you mean as "The Incarnate Christ". The Nestorians of the time would have agreed with that statement, even though they have a radically different view of what the Incarnation is than most Christians. They believed that Jesus was a divided man, in effect two people. That is what the Incarnation meant to them. It was one of the titles suggested (or something close), but was not chosen because it wasn't explicit enough.
Might be. But make sure you define what is meant by Jesus being true God and true man in one Person.
I think it would, however, put the emphasis more on the person of Christ; however, than the person of Mary. To be the Mother of the Incarnate Christ doesn't neccessitate that she pre-exists before God. One would then concentrate on what happened at the incarnation. Christ became BOTH God and Man, a 100%/100% person in complete unity and yet distinct in the fact that his Godhood preexisted eternally, whereas his manhood had a beginning.
What do you think of the title, Mother of the Incarnate Christ?
Dear xzins,
It isn't "gotcha" if one insists on saying that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but ought not be called the Mother of God.
And the fact is, there seems to be some opposition here on this thread to calling Mary the Mother of God. Period. Full stop.
That is precisely what the early Church was getting at with the title "Mother of God."
Part of the difficulty in my view, is that to the Catholic and the Orthodox (perhaps to redgolum's Lutheran) eye, the title "Mother of God" isn't as much about Mary as about Jesus. It's an issue of Christology. When we say, "Mary, Mother of God," we're focused on Who Jesus is, not so much who Mary is. Our focus is on Jesus.
sitetest
Sitetest
I think the matter is further complicated by some other titles that Mary has acquired over the years
Co-Redemtrix
Our Mediator
Mother of the Church
Mother of divine grace
Virgin most merciful
Cause of our joy
Gate of heaven
Morning star
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners
Queen of angels,
Queen of Heaven,
Queen of patriarchs,
Queen of prophets,
Queen of apostles,
Queen of martyrs,
Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins,
Queen of all saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of families
Queen of peace.
Mary is called NONE of these things in Scripture, or are they implied. When you add Mother of God to the equation with all of her other titles, it makes her seem divine.
Catholics are as well. There are many varieties. They may still call themselves Catholics, but there are liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, feminist Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Tridentine Mass Catholics, etc.,
As far as continuously being in a state of fragmentation - that is NOT a basic and elementary fact, though you would like it to be. Some denominations are quite stable. Yes, they have variety within; but the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, & Lutherans (and others), have existed since at least the 1700s, many quite earlier.
It would not be a complete day unless someone calls me a heretic. Judging from some of the weird stuff I have read by the so-called "orthodox" around here, being called a heretic by them is not something I would be too upset about.
P-Marlowe, what do you think about the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ? Would it solve any issues with Mary's title?
Do read the acta of the Third Ecumenical Council. They are available on line in the Eerdmans translation.
'Christotokos' was the title Nestorius insisted on, and it was precisely because the title introduced a distinction between 'the one from the Virgin' and the Divine Logos that the Church has inisted on the title Theotokos as a guard of sound Christology.
At least I am not hiding what Church I belong to.
Dear Blogger,
I'm entirely uninterested in the opinions of non-Catholic/non-Orthodox folks regarding these titles. Inability to understand them properly in context is likely a result of inability or refusal to accept what the Church has infallibly taught:
Mary is the Mother of God.
sitetest
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.