Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

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/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: TomSmedley
The helenisticand anti-biblical horror of sexuality makes a totem out of repudiating a vital component of human experience, and of God's image in humanity. The BVM of mariolatry, like little blue Krishna, is a neutered subhuman.

You think virgins are neutered subhumans? Someone who hasn't had sex just isn't truly human?

Revelation speaks of a 144,000 men who have not "defiled themselves with women". The word used indicates ritual impurity, not sin. Those are 144,000 male virgins. It doesn't say that they're neutered subhumans.

John the Baptist? A neutered subhuman?

201 posted on 12/05/2006 1:25:27 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

wow...Bless you, sister


202 posted on 12/05/2006 1:27:01 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I am referring to a specific case of virginity, that imputed to the BVM, who is believed by some Christians to have wickedly defrauded her lawful spouse.

I think better of her.

203 posted on 12/05/2006 1:28:32 PM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
Which Christians believe that the BVM "wickedly defrauded her lawful spouse"?

Since Catholics believe that to refuse to pay the marriage debt without just cause is a grave sin, and we also believe that the Blessed Virgin never sinned, you can't possibly mean us.

Your comments, sir, are way over the line into incredibly offensive territory.

204 posted on 12/05/2006 1:32:20 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
In some profound way, sexuality images God. "In the image of God created He him. Male and female created He them." Believing she was a true and faithful wife to Joseph in no way impugns Mary's holiness. Rather, treating her husband in a righteous way is the holiest thing a wife can do.

* Are you suggesting that the perpetual virginityy of Mary would mean she treated Joseph Unjustly?

How is such an idea compatible with Mary's freedom from Sin?

205 posted on 12/05/2006 1:37:51 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
* Are you suggesting that the perpetual virginity of Mary would mean she treated Joseph Unjustly?

How is such an idea compatible with Mary's freedom from Sin?

That IS the corner you seem to have backed yourself into, my dear sister, and highly esteemed fellow saint. BTW -- I'd appreciate your prayers for my employment situation -- just finished another round of interviews.

206 posted on 12/05/2006 1:42:38 PM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
* Are you suggesting that the perpetual virginity of Mary would mean she treated Joseph Unjustly?

How is such an idea compatible with Mary's freedom from Sin?

That IS the corner you seem to have backed yourself into, my dear sister, and highly esteemed fellow saint. BTW -- I'd appreciate your prayers for my employment situation -- just finished another round of interviews.

207 posted on 12/05/2006 1:42:49 PM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I have no problem with saying the portrayal of Mary doesn't meet Catholic standards, but why should it have to? Aren't protestant interpretations allowed?


208 posted on 12/05/2006 1:44:13 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
In my experience as a Protestant, the motivation was due in part to a prideful egalitarianism

Well said. It captures the spirit of Porestant attitudes, imo.

209 posted on 12/05/2006 1:49:15 PM PST by kosta50 (Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
Our Lord was unmarried, which is a permissable, but generally less desirable, option.

The notion that remaining single is the "less desireable option" is contrary to 1 Corinthians 7 and the account of Mary and Martha in Luke 10.

-A8

210 posted on 12/05/2006 1:53:14 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Though sinless, she certainly experienced conflicts with those who were not, felt righteous anger, sadness, and joy. She is, after all, human.

According to Romans 3:23, Mary was not sinless.

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Yes, she was human, which indicates that she was indeed a sinner, as are/were all humans, with the exception of Jesus Christ.

211 posted on 12/05/2006 1:56:16 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

Comment #212 Removed by Moderator

To: TomSmedley
So since you reject the Fifth Ecumenical Council's teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity, why then do you accept the Ecumenical Creeds?

That IS the corner you seem to have backed yourself into, my dear sister, and highly esteemed fellow saint.

Your assumption that couples must engage in sexual relations with one another is the false assumption. Paul even points this out in 1 Cor 7:5, where his qualification concerning married couples abstaining "for a time" is still "by way of concession, not of command". The 'duty' of engaging in sexual relations with one's spouse depends upon the state of the spouse. If a husband and a wife both desire to consecrate themselves to the Lord and give up sexual relations, then they have no overriding duty to engage in sexual relations with each other. And thus Mary and Joseph did not sin by never having sexual relations.

-A8

213 posted on 12/05/2006 2:01:38 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Yes, she was human, which indicates that she was indeed a sinner, as are/were all humans, with the exception of Jesus Christ.

Personally, I'll take St. Augustine's opinion over yours:

In refuting Pelagius, St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin 'except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

Heck, even another Augustinian, Martin Luther--the inventor of sola scriptura, himself--was closer to the truth on this matter than you are.
214 posted on 12/05/2006 2:16:11 PM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug
Or are you saying that there are other ways to lose one's virginity?

I'm saying that virginity is not only formal, but also material. The whole idea of the Church's belief that Mary remained a virgin in the very process of giving birth to Jesus, is not aimed principally at denying that sexual intercourse occurred during that process. Rather, it shows that the Church understood the material aspect of virginity, and not just the formal aspect of virginity.

-A8

215 posted on 12/05/2006 2:16:38 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
Your assumption that couples must engage in sexual relations with one another is the false assumption. Paul even points this out in 1 Cor 7:5, where his qualification concerning married couples abstaining "for a time" is still "by way of concession, not of command". The 'duty' of engaging in sexual relations with one's spouse depends upon the state of the spouse. If a husband and a wife both desire to consecrate themselves to the Lord and give up sexual relations, then they have no overriding duty to engage in sexual relations with each other. And thus Mary and Joseph did not sin by never having sexual relations.

Nailed it!
216 posted on 12/05/2006 2:16:53 PM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
married couples abstaining "for a time" ...

And then, come together again, lest Satan tempt you ... for we are not ignorant of his devices. Like fasting, this kind of abstinence is viewed as a temporary condition. To make it permanent is to sin against the spouse, and the God Who ordained and blessed the marital union as normative.

217 posted on 12/05/2006 2:18:55 PM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

Comment #218 Removed by Moderator

To: bornacatholic
Apocalypse 12....

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

*Mary, or Bette Midler, as Queen of Heaven?

You couldn't find a bigger piece of bologna if you looked in a delicatessen...What'd you do? throw out every other verse in the chapter and apply this one to Mary???

The only verse that COULD apply to Mary is verse 2, but it doesn't...It could not possibly be Mary in verses 3,4,6,14 or 17...

So Israel is the 'woman' in the context...Israel brought forth the Lord Jesus Christ...

219 posted on 12/05/2006 2:23:08 PM PST by Iscool (Anybody tired??? I have a friend who says "Come unto me, and I'll give you rest"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
I am your brother, brother.

While I do, of course, accept the Christian Doctrines about Mary, I will concede I have backed myself into a corner only in the sense that mundane and materialistic errors have a broad popular appeal in the middle of protestant America; and in the minds of some protestant Christian minds - and the circle appears to be widening; widening to such an extent that it is even driving the rapidly diminishing orthodoxy from the corners of many protestant minds.

I shall pray you find a job, brother.

Meanwhile, I shall huddle with the faithful remnant in any orthodox corner I can find :)

And, pray to Jesus He will enlighten your intellect to the truth about His Mother.

Ask, Seek, Knock. He will answer. You will find the truth. He will open your mind to that truth. All you need to do is open your mind - on the truth.

Have a productive Advent, brother

220 posted on 12/05/2006 2:24:27 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson