'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/

[Quix]

Does God get older? Does He get wiser? Does He get better? Does He get kinder? Does He get holier?

As I've said above, GOD'S NATURE IS UNCHANGEABLE. His NATURE and what HE DOES are NOT IDENTICAL constructs, sets, realities.

Is God not Justice? Is God not Truth? Is God not all that is Divine? Is God not Love? Can any of these "change?"

GOD'S NATURE IS UNCHANGEABLE. His NATURE and what HE DOES are NOT IDENTICAL constructs, sets, realities.

So what does God change into? What does Justice morph into? What does Divinity become? And Love?

GOD'S NATURE does not change. Therefore, nonsensical questions about HIs Nature are . . . welllllll, rather NONsensical.

It is shackeling God with anthropomorphic terms that places Him into a human-sized box. The Age of reason did that very well, when it humanized God and deified man. Western legacy.

It is, inmho, OUTRAGEOUSLY and insultingl of God to characterize His UNCHANGEABLENESS

IN
ANTHROMORPHIZED
LIMITING
TERMS.

God will NOT fit in such a tiny anthromorphized box--regarding His changless NATURE; regarding His changless DYNAMIC Nature nor any other aspect of His 'BEING.'

[Quix]

God will NOT fit in such a tiny anthromorphized box--regarding His changless NATURE; regarding His changless DYNAMIC Nature nor any other aspect of His 'BEING.'

Which, to me, includes that GOD WILL FOREVER BE CREATIVE as that is part of His UNCHANGEABLE NATURE.

Indeed, it seems likely that He has created us to be forever creative, as well--made in His image . . . etc.

[marron]

GOD IS UNCHANGEABLE IN HIS NATURE. YET HIS NATURE IS INHERENTLY DYNAMIC--ALWAYS MOVEMENT--ALWAYS CREATING, MATURING, ENHANCING, NURTURING, MANIFESTING UNFOLDING DRAMAS AND EXPRESSIONS OF HIS GLORY; OF HIS NATURE; OF HIS LOVELINESS AND LOVE-ISHNESS. I canNOT IMAGINE He will pull in His shingle and quit such when the last saint is HEAVEN 'located.' For His Nature does not change.

Don't tell anyone, but I agree with you.

[Quix]

Oh, dear! Prepare for the virtual tomatoes and eggs. Keeping company with me on any such postulations is tantamount to excommunication in some quarters. LOL.

Thanks for your kind words.

Love your posts. Blessings to you and yours on The Lord’s Day and the coming week.

[kosta50]

That the universe is expanding (and thus had a real beginning of space and time) was confirmed by measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960's. It is also known as the most theological statements ever to be made by modern science. (Jastrow)

The universe appears to be expanding but then it all goes back to 10⁰ point of view. From the earthly vista, Potlemaic navigational system, based on heliocentric assumptions, still works (because science doesn't discover the truth, but creates working models). And from a position on earth, his observations and assumptions appear valid. Just as Newtonian physics work on earth but breakd down in space.

We are traveling at about 1,000 miles/hr through "space" and would never know it. But we are really not going anywhere because we are spinning in circles, literally speaking!

In fact, the entire universe seems to be going around in circles, leaving evidence of cooling at the completion of each round!

[kosta50]

GOD'S NATURE IS UNCHANGEABLE. His NATURE and what HE DOES are NOT IDENTICAL constructs, sets, realities

Of course not. What He does is create. That's not the same as change. He doesn't change His plan. He doesn't change His mind (although the Bible contradicts on that one aspect precisely because of anthropomorphic concepts used). What God makes God doesn't change.

[Quix]

I think you’re dodging the points.

In any case . . .

BEHOLD ALL THINGS BECOME NEW.

. . . A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH.

[kosta50]

beleive the greeks had a word for complete but no word for perfect.. If so it would be logical...

But perfect comes from Latin, and in Latin it means complete/finished. Unfortunately, English borrows foreign words but not the meaning. In English it is a label. In liturgical languages it has a meaning.

In litrugical languages (Hebrew, koine Greek, Latin and Church Slavonic) the word "perfect" means complete or finished. This is one of those reasons why the Bible must be read in those liturgical languages in order to be fully understood.

[Quix]

IIRC, back at whatever post, you seemed to very emphatically insist that

GOD DID NOT CHANGE AND AT A CERTAIN POINT IN THE FUTURE, NEITHER WOULD ANY OF HIS CREATION.

I’m asserting that

GOD’S NATURE IS DYNAMIC, CREATIVE CHANGE of His CreationS and His relationship with particularly SPECIAL COMPONENTS of said CREATION(S)

BEHOLD, I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW.

Seems to be a chronic hobby of His.

New hearts;

New RESURRECTED LIVES;

NEW HEAVENS

NEW EARTH(S)

. . .

NEW

[kosta50]

I don't think even physicists know much about what the nature of BEING will be or is apart from OUR time/space dimension

I hope you are sitting down: I agree! :)

[Quix]

In litrugical languages (Hebrew, koine Greek, Latin and Church Slavonic) the word "perfect" means complete or finished. This is one of those reasons why the Bible must be read in those liturgical languages in order to be fully understood.

Sorry, I find that assertion to be more than a bit of the sort of perspective and attitude that I experience as haughty, pontifical, eccleastical, intellectual hogwash. I can agree that extensive knowledge of said languages and cultures can ENHANCE one's understanding of Scripture written originally in such languages. But essential is a stretch, to me. Holy Spirit is able to enlighten. AND, A GOOD MODERN TRANSLATION includes such meanings and shades of meanings--particularly a collection of such quality translations.

AMPLIFIED I COR 13:
10But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded).

[Quix]

Oh dear. Good thing I was sitting down.

Please check your temp and vital signs!

LUB,

[kosta50]

Creating and changing is not the same thing. God is a Creator. He makes new things from nothing. So, yes, of course, He is dynamic. But he doesn't change that which was made.

Take for instance Hebrews Chapter 8. His Covenant with the people of Israel was made imperfect (corrupt) by the Israelites, so instaed of re-making or fixing it, he promises a new one after He has wiped off (not fixed) their transgressions.

[kosta50]

AMPLIFIED I COR 13: 10But when the complete and perfect (total) comes...

That is a different story, Quix. Most people don't read Amplified Bible. But I agree that such amplified text can avoid many pitfalls ordinary readings can lead to.

[Quix]

So . . . is it a semantics problem between us?

Heading for bed shortly.

A Blessed Sunday to you and yours and the week following.

[hosepipe]

[.. hosepipe would probably appreciate that because he and I are always at odds over the word "dimension" since I am somewhat committed to the meaning wrt geometric physics. ..]

I am not sure why I am not comfortable with the word dimension.. and sometimes use the word paradigm or realm.. but I am not comfortable with it..

Could be because the 1st, 2nd dimension do not exist.. only the 3rd dimension exists.. and I suspect the 4th does not exist either since time exists in the 3rd dimension..

Could also be a lack in me, in my vista of observations.. That has happened before on some items of thought.. Actually I am not real comfortable trying to concieve of higher dimensions.. I feel it could be impossible to do that except as a cartoon of the reality of it in this paradigm..

I am comfortable that the world I live in is a world of flesh and material energy.. and God the Angels and my spirit eventually will live in the Spiritual World/dimension and both paradigm's operate concurrently.. More than that I percieve that, that, is what the bible says too.. besides the warm fuzzy feeling it gives me.. ;)

[.30Carbine]

Thank you, hosepipe...

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

~1 Corinthians 2:10-16

[Kolokotronis]

" At any rate, no matter how one views the importance of the Greek philosophers, I am very sure that everything is unfolding according to God's will." The Greek Fathers certainly used the language of Greek philosophy and to an extent the way the philosophers thought, but they soundly rejected the way those philosophers arrived at their conclusions or what they meant by the language they used. For us to recognize that Greek philosophy formed part of the preparation of the seedbed in which Christianity took root is a good thing. It is a bad thing to believe that these pagan philosophers in any particular manner had come to an understanding of God any greater than that of other pagan peoples. The temptation to do this has been particularly powerful in the West since the days of Aquinas. Aquinas in his disputations with the Mohammedan philosophers relied heavily on Aristotle, which of course made great sense as those most Andalusian thinkers were heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought. Personally, I am convinced that Aquinas was not by any means an Aristotelian, but the language and methods of Aristotle formed a common context for the discussions. Unfortunately his successors seem to have adopted Aristotelianism not merely as a framework within which to discuss Christianity with pagans, but rather accepted it as the way to explain God to themselves and other Christians. This manner of thinking about theology, scholasticism, had a profound effect on Western religious thought and compounded the already existing differences between Eastern and Western Christianity. The effects of this are seen to this day. Indeed, just yesterday a younger Latin on FR responded to a comment I made by speaking of "accidents" and "substances" a propos of the translation of a certain word in the Nicene Creed.

At any rate, we must remember that we are the new Israel, not the new Athens.

[kosta50]

That would be too simple, Q. The issues are more than semantics and you know that.

A Blessed Sunday to you and yours too.

[Quester]

But if we had a nuclear holocaust and only some children of afar off island in the Pacific survived, "time" would cease to exist as none of them would know how old they are, what year it is, or even what day it is. They would only know day and night. Until they invented time and started counting. But the universe would continue in spite of their ignorance and in spite of no one counting time.

Of course time would continue to exist, ... for the islanders would age (as would the rest of the universe), ... which is an effect of time.

Unless, of course, you are also of the viewpoint that a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound ... unless someone is there to hear it.