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/
However, I believe that it is just as reasonable ... that those related to Jesus ... would be hesitant to be seen as claiming any legitimacy ... based upon that relatedness.
I am not so sure. Why would you think men related directly to Jesus would hesitate to claim that?
For one ... christians are exhorted to humility.
Now, I realize that we don't often see a lot of humility on these threads, ... but I am encouraged to think that the early christians may have done somewhat better.
You, in fact, see the same thing with John the Baptist.
Even though Jesus was his cousin, you never see John mentioning that.
Yes, that is true. However, it appears that John did not know Jesus, even by sight, in the human sense. If they were related, they must have been distant cousins who probably did not meet until Christ's ministry began. John may not even had been aware of this relationship.
You are aware that their mothers visited with one another ?
I think that it's fairly certain that Jesus and John spent some time together as children ... perhaps on those treks to the feasts in Jerusalem.
Blogger, I have to ask, why is it so big a deal to say that Mary did not have any more kids? I am a Lutheran, and quite frankly I think it is more than likely that Joseph and Mary did not have sex. It makes sense logically, and isn't contradicted in scripture.
Now, for me it isn't a huge hairy deal. We Lutherans hold it to be an "open question" with the consensus pointing toward Mary never having any more children. But it seems like you are awful worked up over it. Why?
I 'spose some might speculate it is because I engaged in scriptual exegesis in a way guaranteed to make even sola scriptura types blanche and yet the sola scriptura types would have no cause for objection and, therefore, in their silence, demonstrate the unreliability of their own Rule of Faith.
Who can say...
Shhh! You're not supposed to go saying such things. Only us papists are supposed to say that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin. Don't you know that this is the reason that Luther split from Rome? There was nothing at all special about Mary, God just picked a virgin to bear His Son and then the virgin went off and acted like any other newlywed, there was nothing unusual about having Jesus in the home, she needed more children, He wasn't enough.
They never really wanted to respond to my post #1885 from yesterday either.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=1885#1885
You were answered at post #2066.
Yeah, I know. I was being sarcastic.
For the record, I think that Martin Luther is one of the most remarkable and fascinating men ever and I have no qualms about admitting that. I obviously don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I do not think he acted with any malice. Pope Benedict has also studied Luther extensively and has spoken about it on occasion.
For what it's worth, I think the focus was put on Mary sometime in the 18th or 19th centuries when anti-Catholic bigots started realizing that the religious wars had ended and that many Protestants didn't seem to hate Catholics to the extent that these bigots felt was necessary.
Sorry, I missed that. You still seem unable to grasp that Catholics do not believe Mary had other children and that scripture backs it up. As far as the pain of childbirth, the Immaculate Conception might preclude this.
In the very same passage of Genesis, "emnity" is places between "the woman and her seed" and satan and "his seed" -- this is ONE EMNITY, not two, and if the emnity between Christ and satan is absolute and eternal, then His mother enjoys the same.
For what it's worth, I think the focus was put on Mary sometime in the 18th or 19th centuries when anti-Catholic bigots started realizing that the religious wars had ended and that many Protestants didn't seem to hate Catholics to the extent that these bigots felt was necessary.
I think that it was when lay christians began to have the opportunity to read their Bibles.
Of course, to you ... it's all about Protestant hatred.
Not that there was any forgoing Catholic hatred.
"You still seem unable to grasp that Catholics do not believe Mary had other children and that scripture backs it up"
No, I grasp it but that doesn't mean that I agree with it nor that it precludes a different interpretation of the scripture from being given. The article was written from the Roman Catholic perspective and a defense of the movie was called for which entails exegesis of scripture.
Benedict is German and taught in Germany, of necessity he would be well-versed in Luther. Bonhoeffer, is one of the greatest martyrs in history as far as I am concerned and one of the most remarkable theologians of the last few hundred years (the funny thing is that if you read "Cost of Discipleship" and don't know he is a Lutheran, you would guess he was a Catholic).
I think that it was when lay christians began to have the opportunity to read their Bibles.
So, men such as Luther, Calvin and Wesley just "missed it"?
There are in excess of ONE BILLION Catholics and Orthodox in the world who would take issue with the way this movie portrays Mary.
The fact that some post-sixteenth century denomination isn't bothered by it is irrelevant.
"The fact that some post-sixteenth century denomination isn't bothered by it is irrelevant."
Oh, then why should the "in excess of ONE BILLION Catholics and Orthodox in the world" care about a movie that some irrelevant "post-sixteenth century denomination" made and finds relevant?
Good for you, brother. Myself, I drive my family crazy because I can't shut-up about something I just read in the Bible that struck me in a new way etc
KJV seems to translate hieras as "priest" and presbyteros as "elder". This ignores the Catholic and Orthodox usage, when in the case of the Greek Orthodox, no transaltion was even necessary. It is tendentious, and at least in some case, as I showed earlier, contradicts the context as in 1 Timothy 4:14. It is also misleading since there is nothing except in that single case of 1 Tim 5 in the usage to suggest advanced age, and a priest can be ordained quite young. Several apostles, the Tradition teaches, were too young to have beards.
There was ample devotional literature available in English, and of course, there was Douay. Regardless of any written word, the English speaking Christians referred to preists as "priests" and not as "elders" since time immemorial.
Any kind of mechanical multiplication of praying is, I think, highly suspect. Likewise, there is little point in asking for prayers from someone whose sincerity you have reasons to doubt.
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.