'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]

The Spirit added the equivalent of male human DNA to join with Mary's egg so that she "conceived"

So, then, Christ is a product of divine and human "genetics?" You are actually suggesting that Mary's DNA (halpoid ovum) genetically fused with the "genetic equivalent" of a divine male [?] DNA (divine "sperm," a "haploid") to produce a mixture of divine and human, a demigod!

[adiaireton8]

Ping to 2900.

-A8

[P-Marlowe]

You didn't answer any of my questions.

[Blogger]

John Paul II indicated that there was a Messianic fervor at this time. It is NOT a stretch to think Mary fully understood that she was chosen to give birth to the Messiah. Whether or not she realized that He was also God, I doubt. Jewish understanding never seems to have caught on to the fact that the Messiah would be God.

[Blogger]

It may show some of Jewish culture, but it shouldn't be used as evidence of anything doctrinal any more than the many non-Scriptural books coming out at the time should be considered for doctrine seeing that it was NOT inspired Scripture.

[Blogger]

I wasn't the first one who used the term forgery. I don't believe it is Scriptural.

As far as it being a recording of what someone believed were the beliefs of early Christians, the Muslims believe that we believe that Mary is a member of the Trinity (I can't remember which one falls off, Son or Holy Spirit). Again, this is not evidence that this is an early Christian belief. Adopted later? Yes. But there is no evidence the earliest believers thought about Mary in this manner.

[Blogger]

I don't really see how using a haploid affects things either. Mary's DNA provided the human part; unless, the concern is that there would be no Y chromasome coming from Mary, being female. Of course, considering that this is a miraculous event, providing Jesus a Y Chromasome would be no problem if making him a male human is an issue. The Holy Spirit did not place a baby in Mary's womb. The Holy Spirit created a baby through Mary.

Now, as to using Mary, God could have incarnated himself without human agency at all. However, He wouldn't have because the purpose for using Mary is to fulfill his promises to David in Scripture. The Messiah had to be a blood descendent of David. I think that is what you are getting at with the lineage question isn't it? Or have I misunderstood what the debate is about?

[D-fendr]

It's a good time for a little Chaucer:

Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia caeli porta manes, et stella maris, succurre cadenti, surgere qui curat, populo: tu quae genuisti, natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore, sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere.

[Blogger]

The prayer to Mary as mother of the Redeemer is Chaucer?

[adiaireton8]

So she was "The Immacualte Incubator" huh?

No; she is not merely an "incubator". She is His mother.

Christ had no physical relationship to Mary?

He is her son, flesh of her flesh. In Acts 2:30 we see that the Christ is the fruit of David's loins [karpou tes osphuos] and [fructu lumbi eius]. In Rom 1:3 we see that He was born "of the seed of David according to the flesh" [ek spermatos David kata sarka] and [ex semine David secundum caarnem]. His human nature was taken from her.

In what way then is Christ the Son of Man?

His human nature was taken from her.

In what way is Christ the Son of David?

His human nature was taken from her.

In what way is Christ the seed of Abraham?

His human nature was taken from her.

-A8

[D-fendr]

;)

It's mentioned in Canterbury Tales...

[D-fendr]

"Loving Mother of our Savior" - a liturgical Marian antiphon.

Special to Advent.

[Blogger]

Gotcha.

[P-Marlowe]

Tell that to your Orthodox buddies. They don't seem to understand.

[bornacatholic]

Are you telling me sola scriptura does not tell us to read the Word as it is and to first interpret it literally?

[bornacatholic]

BTW, please post the definitive teaching of sola scriptura accrd to the protestant revolutionaries.

And then, try citing that teaching in scripture

[bornacatholic]

Just check your history of posts and read the ones where I corrected your errors.

Have a good day, brother

[bornacatholic]

How do you say, "Touche" in Greek?

[Kolokotronis]

"As far as it being a recording of what someone believed were the beliefs of early Christians, the Muslims believe that we believe that Mary is a member of the Trinity (I can't remember which one falls off, Son or Holy Spirit). Again, this is not evidence that this is an early Christian belief. Adopted later? Yes. But there is no evidence the earliest believers thought about Mary in this manner."

Its the Holy Spirit which falls off, Sura 5:116. Its important to understand that Mohammedanism is an offshoot of Arianism with an intermixture of Arabian paganism. By the time of Mohammad, Arabians at Mecca were actually worshiping little idols of Christ and Mary at the Kabbah and there was an odd "Christian" sect in the area which indeed did worship Mary called Collyridians. Given that Mohammad was influenced by an Arian monk, that Arianism had penetrated the Arabian peninsula, that there was indeed a sect worshiping Mary there, that the Arabians had placed idols of Mary and Christ in the Kabbah and that Mohammad knew about the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, its easy to understand where these ideas of his came from.

You might find this 8th century critique of Mohammedanism by +John of Damascus interesting. He knew that heresy well, having served the Caliph at Damascus as the Grand Counselor.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

One of the reasons, B, that you will have observed that the catholics and Orthodox here are so conscious of and adamant about Heresy is that its fruit is ALWAYS foul and poisonous. We've been dealing with it for a long, long time and virtually every heresy has its roots, usually, in someone's interpretation of what we all pretty much agree is the canon of scripture or, less likely, of writings which didn't make it into the canon. Heresy, B, rots the soul; it disfigures the brilliant image of God which we all share. It always brings the stench of the tomb and spiritual death. It cleverly worms its way into the minds of Christians and others.

"Just as the fishermen hide the hook with bait and covertly hook the fish, similarly, the crafty allies of the heresies cover their evil teachings and corrupt understanding with pietism and hook the more simple, bringing them to spiritual death." +Isidore of Pelusium

[jo kus]

We can only ever be righteous people as a result of God's work in our lives. The best of the best of us, our righteousness is still filthy rags. Our hearts are continually set towards evil.

I am not denying that. I agree with you that man can never ascend to God on his own. When a person is said to be righteous, it is because God has made him so - and not by merely declaring some legal status. God MAKES us righteous internally, as the Spirit comes to us and makes us a new creation. Thus, it is not an "either/or" - either me or God. It is both - God and I cooperating. I am given the grace to obey God and I am expected to obey Him. That is the basis for my upcoming judgment. Did I utilize the gifts God has given me. The parable of the Talents clearly shows this judgment and the interaction that exists between God's gifts and man's response.

The mere fact that we are judged shows that man is involved in the equation - as God desires ALL men to be saved. Since some are not, obviously some men do not respond. Thus, man is part of the equation on who is to be saved.

Regards