'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."

Scripture. It is the anchor... We dig through Scripture. Chew on it a while.

And, as you've said, come up with different interpretations.

Why? Because that is one of the ways that God helps us to learn.

Not doubting the value of reading scripture. But who then teaches and corrects when one asks: What does Christ's Church teach?

He left teachers here to teach.

Yes he did and they taught others who taught others in the manner Christ established..

"some centralized hierarchical structure saying "yep, it's from God." ?"

If you have a Church - excepting perhaps a Unitarian one - somebody, somewhere said that. Does you not teach that what you teach is "from God."? Our disagreement is about who teaches what and why and what their method and authority is.

How do you know the church got it right?

That's the question isn't it? Your answer is 'they agree in what I think are essentials according to (my interpretation of) scripture.

Personally I see that as a formula for invent your own religion based on this book.

I don't look for The Church, The Christian Church, to give me this assignment. I want to know from it what is the Orthodox Christian Faith. I can reject or accept this. But I can't even get this far with Protestantism.

On the Apostles Creed: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.iv.html The earlier form [of the apostles creed].... may possibly go back to the third or even the second century. It was probably imported from the East, or grew in Rome, and is substantially identical with the Greek creed of Marcellus of Ancyra (about 340), inserted in his letter to Pope Julius I. to prove his orthodoxy, 956956 In Epiphanius, Haer. LXXII. it is assigned to a.d. 341, by others to 337. It is printed in Schaff (II. 47), Hahn, and in the first table below. It contains, according to Caspari, the original form of the Roman creed as current at the time in the Greek portion of the Roman congregation. It differs from the oldest Latin form only by the omission of πατέρα , and the addition of ζωὴν αἰώνιον 56and with that contained in the Psalter of King Aethelstan..957957 The Psalterium Aethelstani, in the Cotton Library of the British Museum, written in Anglo-Saxon letters, first published by Ussher, then by Heurtley, Caspari, and Hahn (p. 15). It differs from the text of Marcellus by the insertion of πατέρα and the omission of ζωὴν αἰώνιον , in both points agreeing with the Latin text. 57 Greek was the ruling language of the Roman Church and literature down to the third century..958958 On the Greek original of the Roman symbol CaspariÂ’s researches (III. 267-466) are conclusive. Harnack (in Herzog 2, vol. I. 567) agrees: " Der griechische Text ist als das Original zu betrachten; griechisch wurde das Symbol zu Rom eine lange Zeit hindurch ausschliesslich tradirt. Dann trat der lateinisch Ã¼bersetzte Text als Parallelform hinzu ." Both are disposed to trace the symbol to Johannean circles in Asia Minor on account of the term "only begotten, ( μονογενής ), which is used of Christ only by John. 58 The longer form of the Roman symbol, or the present received text, does not appear before the sixth or seventh century. It has several important clauses which were wanting in the former, as "he descended into hades,"959959 Descendit ad inferna, first found in Arian Creeds ( εἰς ᾅδου or εἰς ᾅδην ) about a.d. 360; then in the Creed of Aquileja, about a.d. 390; then in the Creed of Venantius Fortunatus, 590, in the Sacramentarium Gallicanum, 650, and in the ultimate text of the ApostlesÂ’ Creed in Pirminius, 750. See the table in SchaffÂ’s Creeds, II. 54, and critical note on p. 46. Rufinus says expressly that this clause was not contained in the Roman creed and explains it wrongly as being identical with "buried." Com. c. 18 (in Migne, f. 356): "Sciendum sane est, quod in Ecclesiae Romanae Symbolo non habetur additum, Â’descendit ad inferna:Â’ sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo: via tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo, quod Â’sepultis dicitur.Â’" The article of the descent is based upon PeterÂ’s teaching, Acts 2: 31 ("he was not left in Hades," εἰς ἅδου, consequently he was there); 1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6; and the promise of Christ to the, dying robber, Luke 23:34 (" to day thou shalt be with Me in paradise," ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ), and undoubtedly means a self exhibition of Christ to the spirits of the departed. The translation " descended into hell" is unfortunate and misleading. We do not know whether Christ was in hell; but we do know from his own lips that he was in paradise between his death and resurrection. The term Hades is much more comprehensive than Hell (Gehenna), which is confined to the state and place of the lost. 59 the predicate "catholic" after ecclesiam,960960 It is found first in the Sacramentarium Gallicanum, 650. The older creeds of Cyprian , Rufinus, Augustin , read simply sanctam ecclesiam, Marcellus ἀγίαν ἐκκλησίαν 60 "the communion of saints,"961961 Sanctorum communionem. After 650. 61 and "the life everlasting."962962 Contained in Marcellus and Augustin , but wanting in Rufinus and in the Psalter of Aethelstan. See on all these additions and their probable date the tables in my Creeds of Christendom, II. 54 and 55. 62 These additions were gathered from the provincial versions (Gallican and North African) and incorporated into the older form.

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.