'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will?

Calvin is entitled to his fantasies, but the divinely inspired author went out of his way to explain to us the opposite, that God allowed Adam to exercise his free will not only without wishing it, but seemingly not even knowing that the sin took place:

9 And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? [...] 11 ... And who hath told thee that thou wast naked [...] 13 ... Why hast thou done this?

I am a member of His church (like it or not)

My local church, which adheres to the principles found in Scripture, has appointed me a teacher. I also exhibit the gift of prophecy (not foretelling the future, rather the biblical meaning of prophecy). These gifts are strictly bound by what is found in Scripture.

Other Christian organizations have recognized this gift in me and I have diligently studied Scripture in order to prepare myself to give that ready answer that Peter speaks of.

The Bible was around in those days. The Old Testament Scriptures were readily available and the New Testament Scriptures were widely circulating. God did not leave the world with JUST the witness of His apostles. And, contrary to your comment, the Apostles were not in charge - God was. The apostles were men lead by God. They took what He taught them and wrote it down that future generations may read and KNOW that He alone is God.

God has no Mother

Is Christ God?

Is Mary His mother?

If you read the thread from the beginning, within a hundred posts or so you will see the same objections as yours raised and answered. I do not mind answering them again, but you will get the answers sooner if you read the thread and then ask what remains unanswered.

There are plenty of Catholics who disagree with their church teachings and are considered by Catholicism as Catholics. Take Nancy Pelosi for example

Catholics can speculate but they are not at liberty to be "Catholics a little bit." john Kerry who supports abortion may consider himself a Catholic but he is not. A American who openly supports Al-Qaida may be an American citizen by birth, but he is not an American; he is anti-American. Freedom of speech is not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The Bible does not give everyone the authority to be a self-styled "pope."

It is not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to His mercy He has saved us

The Father draws us, but we don't have to come. We will be judged according to what we have done. That's why God gave us reason and choices.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. [2 Cor 5:10]

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done."[Rev 22:2]

As for God's mercy and justice, whatever happens to all of us will be merciful and just, as we deserved in God's eyes, because God is merciful and just.

Say what??????!!!!!

You are denying God's omniscience and omnipotence???ANNALEX!!!! If that is what you believe about God, good grief how do you sleep at night?

If God is stripped of his essential attributes He is no longer God, we have no hope, and anything can happen. If God is stripped of his essential attributes then the world is governed by chance, our molecular structure is held together by who knows what and we have no hope in anything.

Rethink your statement Annalex. The implications are profound.

instances of pride

In the present context, I would always try to present the view of the Church ahead of my own, and when for some reason I wish to present my own theological view that is narrower than the entire berth of the doctrine, I would identify it as such.

I may of course err at that, but then there are many knowledgeable Catholics here to correct me.

I also exhibit the gift of prophecy

Whatever...

Other Christian organizations have recognized this gift in me and I have diligently studied Scripture in order to prepare myself to give that ready answer that Peter speaks of

Well, true pophets and apostles did not have to study anything.

The Bible was around in those days. The Old Testament Scriptures were readily available and the New Testament Scriptures were widely circulating

The Old Testament was in the synagogues. Not everyone can read in a synagogue. The New Testament was not completed for about 60 years after Christ died on the Cross. The individual books were in individual scrolls, precious manuscripts, safeguarded by the Church.

There were some 200 different documents pretending to be "Gospels" and "Epistles," of which the Church selected only 23, confident that they were genuine. It took the Church 300 years to do that. This is the same Church whose hierarchy you accused of error, yet you have no problem believeing the Christain canon they put together.

the apostles were still alive to lay hands

The phenomenon you marvel about is called apostolic succession; however, the apostles and all the saints are alive, yes:

6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life
(Romans 2)

This reference to salvific character of works just cropped up inadvertently. Surely St. Paul changed his mind by the time he got around to 3:28.

As to "appearances": People often see what they want to see and stop looking too quickly. People often prefer leaping to a conclusion which confirms their prejudices to moving slowly and cautiously toward the truth.

And yet it appears Annalex does not shirk from that conclusion. Rather, he agreed with it in his post #4,585 by answering the question "...why does the Catholic church venerate, pray to and for all appearances worship the woman, Mary?" with his response --

Annalex: "'Cuz she's Mother of God? Just a wild guess."

Annalex didn't nitpick or whittle down the truth of his actions or beliefs by parsing words and I admire him for it (although I disagree with his conclusion.)

I personally do not bow down to idols or images. I may bow down before them but my heart is making reverence or prostration not to something I imagine is in the image.

See? There you go again. "I bow down 'before' idols; I don't bow down 'to' idols."

The end result of this prepositional switch is the same -- you are kneeling before gold and silver and wood and paint.

"Shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?"

Scripture says "No."

why do the people imagine a vain thing?

Apparently you've answered your own question in the next paragraph...

We don't read the Bible either.

But those to whom Jesus was speaking were alive and on earth at the time. He didn't say "you will be blessed"

Blessed are all mericful and pure in heart, and those suffering for righteousness' sake, etc. for all times, past, present and futre.

He didn't say blessed are 'you' (the apostles)...or 'you' (the people) but those (or they) who suffer...the merciful, not 'you' merciful, etc.

The Lord's Prayer says "Thy kingdom come..." It means the Kingdom is not here, BD. genhqhtw is aorist (fuutre,something that is to come or beocme yet)

The Beatitudes spell out what qualities of men, of mankind, are dear to God, and what God intends to do with such men.

There are plenty of Catholics who disagree with their church teachings and are considered by Catholicism as Catholics. Take Nancy Pelosi for example

No one here is Nancy Pelosi's confessor. Proabort politicians are generally considered excommunicated without formal pronouncement to that effect by their acts that support abortion. The controversy is, if she presents herself to the communion, should it be given? The assumption is that anytime anyone approaches the communion rail, he has examined his conscience and considers himself worthy of taking it. It is a grave act to publicly refuse communion and at the present time the Church leaves it up to the priest or his bishop. Typically, the left wing nominal Catholics who wish to receive communion go to the most liberal parishes they can find, as they know that more orthodox priests would turn them back.

It is worth noting here that the Church formally excommunicates only in the rarest of circumstances. Typically, it is only done to someone who publicly teaches a theological error. The bulk of the baptized Christians who do not practice in a Catholic or Orthodox Church fall off silently. There is no publicly announced moment when that happens.

And, there is always a way back. Those who already profess the Catholic Faith but lapsed due to personal sin can come to confession any time and restore their full communion. Those who need an instruction in faith need to go through the RCIA process (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). It has two phases: Inquiry and Catechumenate. On the Inquiry phase, the inquirer simply gets his questions answered while no assumption of his desire to join the Church is made. On the Catechumenate phase he declared his desire to become Catholic, receives the necessary instruction and goes through the necessary sacramental steps. Protestant baptism is generally recognized and Orthodox baptism is always recognized. I am not sure about the Orthodox chrysmation. The newly initiated usually receive the necessary rites and take their first communion on Easter.

There are plenty of Catholics who disagree with their church teachings and are considered by Catholicism as Catholics. Take Nancy Pelosi for example.

That's hardly true. If someone removes themself from the faith in practice it become superfluous what they say regarding whether they are a member of said faith. Church authorities have come out against politicians who advocate anti-Catholic positions. An Apostate by any other name is still an Apostate.

You are denying God's omniscience and omnipotence???

Not at all. I am reading the Bible. You know, like the Bereans.

The inspired author decided to use the language he used. God acts as if He did not know where Adam was and what happened. This does not shake my belief in the omnipresent and omniscient God; however it tell me what God wanted me to know: that His will in that instance was purely permissive, and that Calvin, once again, need to read the scripture more and theorize less.

I also exhibit the gift of prophecy

Whatever...

My statement stands.

Other Christian organizations have recognized this gift in me and I have diligently studied Scripture in order to prepare myself to give that ready answer that Peter speaks of

Well, true p[r]ophets and apostles did not have to study anything.

Says who?

Daniel 9:2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.

Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Bible was around in those days. The Old Testament Scriptures were readily available and the New Testament Scriptures were widely circulating

The Old Testament was in the synagogues. Not everyone can read in a synagogue. The New Testament was not completed for about 60 years after Christ died on the Cross. The individual books were in individual scrolls, precious manuscripts, safeguarded by the Church.

There were some 200 different documents pretending to be "Gospels" and "Epistles," of which the Church selected only 23, confident that they were genuine. It took the Church 300 years to do that. This is the same Church whose hierarchy you accused of error, yet you have no problem believeing the Christain canon they put together.

As you surely already know, I eschew the doctrines and traditions of mortal men altogether and thus have no "dog in this fight" - but there is one thing I'd like to add.

My leaning in the Spirit is that it is just as wrong to honor Mary too little as it is to honor her too much.

She truly is the "Blessed Mother of the Incarnate Word" - but going overboard surely would not honor her, i.e. it would make her uncomfortable. The Scriptures tell me that she was and (I aver) remains, humble.

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.