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/
Try reading some of those Scriptures and you might see something you've overlooked.
LOL. I see me posting Scripture and you posting none of it.
You did understand my point didn't you?
Can they? Nobody's stopping them. They won't.
Why won't they? And why will you?
I've been on these threads long enough to notice Dr. Eckleburg ability to consider scripture only marginally related to the question on hand as scriptural proof, and then with a straight face defend the superstition of Sola Scriptura.
His references have seemed pretty relevant to me. What Scripture do you offer annalex?
You are. You created a room of starvers and you picked some to change; you left the others to suffer.
And you were capricious and cruel in your actions.
Yet you're elected. Aren't you?
How is this not caprice?
That says it all. Is this critique based on a Mary that has been created through tradition or actual Scripture?
BTW, I really liked the movie and thought they did a good job, especially with the portrayal of Mary. The "Mary" in pictures and on Christmas cards is more unbelievable to me than this young Mary.
I provided everything that they needed and opened the door wide that they might receive. They refused. And you still blame me? Do you believe that I was somehow obligated to force-feed them? Did I owe any of them anything more than the open door and invitation to receive?
The letters to Timothy and Titus in their entirety speak to the emerging hierarchy. Besides, at which point does the scripture begin to matter to you? To me, one verse is quite enough. Go check -- I did not take it out of context, the entire letter to Corinthians is an expression of St. Paul's authority.
St. Ignatius wrote that in 1c., which is evidence of a strong hierarchy from bishop down established as early as that. You cannot dismiss it -- it is history.
The casting of lots indeed was an expression of a desire to let God decide on the twelveth apostle, but that is because unlike bishops, the Apostles were chosen directly by Christ.
Deliberations, including protestations to the pope, are how things are done in the Catholic Church to this day. It is also noteworthy that St. Paul corrected Peter on a matter of his personal behavior, and not on a matter of faith.
It is true that St. James presided at the council of Jerusalem. That is because he was the local bishop there. But on the papacy I agree that it was much looser in the beginning; it is the hierarchy from the bishop down that was a mark of the early Church,
Why didn't you give them the same thing you gave the others? By lot?
Don't forget, you created them that way. You know they wouldn't eat unless you did your special power thing. You could have, yet you didn't, for them, just for some.
How cruel is that, Blogger!
I read the scripture daily, and appreciate your postings of it, at least when the translation is not too atrocious. My remark was satirizing your commentary, not disagreeing in any way with the scripture itself.
I didn't create them that way. They chose to be hungry.
You're trying to have it both ways.
They were all born hungry in your view. Helplessly so, without your magic mind changer. You chose to change some and not others.
Why did you choose the ones you chose and not the others? On what basis or criteria?
Read Romans. It's all there.
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." -- Romans 9:18
Paul anticipated your questions and further explains...
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" -- Romans 9:19-24"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
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.