'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/

[annalex]

This proves Bible Alone? How?

[P-Marlowe]

The Sola Scriptura remains an extrascriptural superstition.

Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Purgatory is a superstition. Prayers to the saints is a superstition. Sola Scriptura is merely a method of discerning the truth by using scripture as the final authority.

You may disagree with it, but it is not a "superstition".

[1000 silverlings]

A shaven head in the time of Paul and before, in Jewish culture, was a sign of shame. It was done to women slaves to make them sexually unattractive to their captors, to discourage lying with them and producing offspring. The torah states that this would lead to nothing but trouble.

Baldness in men was acceptable or unacceptable in the Levite priesthood. For instance, a widow's peak was acceptable, but losing your hair up in the crown, was not.

Therefore, a woman with a full head of hair was the glory of her husband indeed. A woman with her head "covered" with a full head of hair was pleasing to the Lord. A man had his head uncovered and the people could judge for themselves if the priest's baldness was pleasing to the Lord.

What all this had to do with Christians is-- nothing

[Kolokotronis]

"Blogger somehow implies that I ascribe a sinister motivation to him."

I ascribe sinister motives to all of you guys, but somehow, you still let me hang around. It must be my air of Hellenic disdain! :)

[1000 silverlings]

The Pope decided it was okay. that's about it.

[1000 silverlings]

Quite simply says that knowing Christ alone, and him crucified, is knowing all that the Holy Spirit teaches.

[Captain Gates]

While it's not practiced much, headcoverings are still a testimony of the God-ordained headship model that we've lost in this generation. I believe that it should be brought back.

[1000 silverlings]

Are you going to force women to wear it?

[Captain Gates]

Most definitely not..... I believe that its power is found in the willingness of the wearer. My family and I fellowshipped with plain-dressing mennonites for nearly a year not too long back. It was a really neat experience.

[1000 silverlings]

We are to worship the Lord in Spirit and in Truth and I believe we have leeway to do that without the return of the law. Forcing people to comply is, well let's just say, Talibanish

[Captain Gates]

So here's the reference that I found on the evolution issue from www.catholic.com:

http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

It seems that Pope Pius XII sanctioned it(Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

Here's the citation:

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)


My undergraduate degree in Cellular and Molecular Biology gives me a peek into the probability of mankind arising from evolutionary processes. If you take the time to do the math, the probability is ZERO. I know that there are plenty of secular AND 'christian' academics and scientists who adhere to the theory of evolution, but not this soldier.

[wagglebee]

I wouldn't worry about hijacking a thread with nearly 10,000 posts that was originally about how Catholics might take offense about a movie that as far as I know isn't even in theaters any more.

I haven't paid much attention to the Church's teachings on evolution vs. creation. I know that they have not dismissed creation. I would check online Catholic sources, including the Catechism.

Here are a few that may interest you:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/evolution.asp
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071104.html
http://catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html

[Captain Gates]

Yeah, but this is new-testament teaching that appeals to the creation.... a pretty strong case seems to be made. I wouldn't relegate it to 'law'.

This isn't to say that my family practices it..... still, I think it is a really neat witness. Have you ever lusted after a woman with a headcovering?

There's something spiritually protective of headcoverings. What's your gut feeling when you see a mennonite woman with headcovering? How about a 'liberated' woman in revealing and tightly fitting clothes? Perhaps a bare mid-section and a belly button piercing?

Interesting anyway.

[1000 silverlings]

The bible says that God made mankind a little lower than the angels. Some rat creature is not "a little lower than the angels," nor is it made in God's image. The Pope obviously had some other agenda in mind when he issued that opinion.

[Captain Gates]

Thanks! I guess the 'how' in creation isn't a salvation issue...... this isn't as crucial of an issue as are the pro-life and abortifacient issues that the Lord has laid on my heart.... not by any stretch.

[wagglebee]

My understanding of science is rudimentary at best and I'm not much better at theology. But I'll give you some possibilities:

1. At what point in the First Day did God command light? As there was no differentiation between night and day, that day could have been thousands of years.

2. On the Second Day He created the firmament, this WOULD HAVE affected gravity and the Earth's rotation possibly shortening the duration of the day.

3. The Third Day the waters were gathered and dry land was created, so during these two days which could have lasted ANY LENGTH OF TIME anything could have happened in the seas.

4. Also, on the Third Day, vegetation was created; however, on the Fourth Day God said, "Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years."

So, what we have are four days that lasted an undetermined length of time, this could have been thousands even millions of years.

[stfassisi]

This is one of my favorite quotes from the late Pope John Paul ll....
""We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know Him and to speak to others of our friendship with Him. The task of the shepherd, the task of the fisher of men, can often seem wearisome. But it is beautiful and wonderful, because it is truly a service to joy, to God’s joy which longs to break into the world.""

from
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html

[Quix]

in a lot of respects
= = =

I very carefully and deliberately noted it was not in ALL respects.

I didn't think that would be difficult English.

[stfassisi]

Well...
Luther was a confused individual ,and confusion does not come from the Holy Spirit.
The fact is ,that the Protestant reformation is about confusion .
Ask yourself why there is 30,000 plus Protestant denominations that can,t agree on many things?

The teachings on faith and Morals and many other things in the Catholic Church remain the same for over 2000 years.
NO CONFUSION!

Sorry Dear Brother ,this is just the TRUTH

[Captain Gates]

Yes.... as a science major in my undergrad studies(and in my doctoral studies) I really struggled with this. I did a lot of study on it, focusing my reading largely in the young earth creationism camp. I'll probably never be convinced of anything older than, say, 12,000 to 15,000 yrs, but it is much less of a concern for me lately.... it's just that you really have to stretch the scriptures to match the 'findings' of the secular scientists.

I know how research can go if you have preconceived ideas. I was a Howard Hughes Medical Institue Fellow and did my own molecular biology research and I've seen studies tweaked this way and that to yield any number of supports for preconceived ideas. Being from the 'sola scriptura' camp, I take the scripture as authority..... and it seems that if the Lord were communicating the details of the creation with the old testament saints in the manner that he did, he intended the readers to understand that they were normal days and not millenia or even more.... it just smells too much like compromise in the face of a growing contingent of secular science.