Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

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/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,781-1,8001,801-1,8201,821-1,840 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: redgolum

Wouldn't the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ solve the problem?


1,801 posted on 12/18/2006 6:54:18 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1779 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
Which are good points. The title "Mother of God" can lead to problems, but to call Mary the "Mother of Christ" or the "Mother of Jesus" only leads to more problems. Heck, I see it often in Bible classes where people don't want to sound "to Catholic" and end up Unitarian or Arian. It isn't a cure all title, but it was chosen for a reason, and a pretty good one. The risks of calling Mary "The Mother of God", are as you said, it can leave some with the impression that Mary "made" God, and therefore is some sort of god herself. She isn't, and that isn't what the title is about, but if one doesn't understand the background and the Incarnation that well, it can be the impression one gets.

The best answer would be good confirmation classes (not sure what others call them) early on that explicitly says who and what Jesus Christ is. Unfortunately, across the board, that is pretty rare. As you said, few really take the time to learn what they proclaim to believe, and has been the case since about 35 AD or so.
1,802 posted on 12/18/2006 6:55:14 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1793 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I asked you not to ping me. I am asking you again, one more time. I have no desire to read or to respond or to receive anything from you.
1,803 posted on 12/18/2006 6:56:29 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1795 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

We don't have confirmation, but certainly every church needs to have thorough doctrinal studies. I teach Sunday school at my church and that is the whole purpose of my class. We call it the Ready Answer class. It is knowing WHY you believe what you believe. I think this topic may be one worth pursuing.


1,804 posted on 12/18/2006 6:57:33 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1802 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan

I don't really care.

The protocol is to ping those cited. When cited or responded to, you'll get pinged. It's an open forum.

I'd suggest you quit throwing around charges of "heresy" at others.


1,805 posted on 12/18/2006 6:58:15 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1803 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
Wouldn't the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ solve the problem?

In a sense it would. But only if you define what you mean as "The Incarnate Christ". The Nestorians of the time would have agreed with that statement, even though they have a radically different view of what the Incarnation is than most Christians. They believed that Jesus was a divided man, in effect two people. That is what the Incarnation meant to them. It was one of the titles suggested (or something close), but was not chosen because it wasn't explicit enough.

1,806 posted on 12/18/2006 6:58:22 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1801 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
I think this topic may be one worth pursuing.

Might be. But make sure you define what is meant by Jesus being true God and true man in one Person.

1,807 posted on 12/18/2006 6:59:42 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1804 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I think it would, however, put the emphasis more on the person of Christ; however, than the person of Mary. To be the Mother of the Incarnate Christ doesn't neccessitate that she pre-exists before God. One would then concentrate on what happened at the incarnation. Christ became BOTH God and Man, a 100%/100% person in complete unity and yet distinct in the fact that his Godhood preexisted eternally, whereas his manhood had a beginning.


1,808 posted on 12/18/2006 7:02:06 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1806 | View Replies]

To: xzins

What do you think of the title, Mother of the Incarnate Christ?


1,809 posted on 12/18/2006 7:03:21 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1805 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
Yes and +John (1:2w) says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John is not calling the Word to be the Father, nor is causing any confusion by calling Word God, nor when he says the Word was with God. Nor is gthere confusion that Christ was born of Virign Mary and was and is and will be God.
1,810 posted on 12/18/2006 7:03:36 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1796 | View Replies]

To: xzins; redgolum

Dear xzins,

It isn't "gotcha" if one insists on saying that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but ought not be called the Mother of God.

And the fact is, there seems to be some opposition here on this thread to calling Mary the Mother of God. Period. Full stop.

That is precisely what the early Church was getting at with the title "Mother of God."

Part of the difficulty in my view, is that to the Catholic and the Orthodox (perhaps to redgolum's Lutheran) eye, the title "Mother of God" isn't as much about Mary as about Jesus. It's an issue of Christology. When we say, "Mary, Mother of God," we're focused on Who Jesus is, not so much who Mary is. Our focus is on Jesus.


sitetest


1,811 posted on 12/18/2006 7:04:40 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1800 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
Blogger, mainstream Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians) to the best of my knowledge do not deny Mary as the Mother of God. Other Protestants, offshoots from those original groups, do. There is no insult, nothing derogatory in saying "offshoots" of Protestantism. Protestants are continuously in a state of fragmentation. That is basic and elementary knowledge and fact.
1,812 posted on 12/18/2006 7:07:50 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1797 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Sitetest
I think the matter is further complicated by some other titles that Mary has acquired over the years

Co-Redemtrix
Our Mediator
Mother of the Church
Mother of divine grace
Virgin most merciful
Cause of our joy
Gate of heaven
Morning star
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners
Queen of angels,
Queen of Heaven,
Queen of patriarchs,
Queen of prophets,
Queen of apostles,
Queen of martyrs,
Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins,
Queen of all saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of families
Queen of peace.


Mary is called NONE of these things in Scripture, or are they implied. When you add Mother of God to the equation with all of her other titles, it makes her seem divine.


1,813 posted on 12/18/2006 7:11:36 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1811 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Catholics are as well. There are many varieties. They may still call themselves Catholics, but there are liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, feminist Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Tridentine Mass Catholics, etc.,

As far as continuously being in a state of fragmentation - that is NOT a basic and elementary fact, though you would like it to be. Some denominations are quite stable. Yes, they have variety within; but the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, & Lutherans (and others), have existed since at least the 1700s, many quite earlier.


1,814 posted on 12/18/2006 7:14:45 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1812 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Marlowe, I think you just got called a heretic. With finesse, of course, but the meaning is clear.

It would not be a complete day unless someone calls me a heretic. Judging from some of the weird stuff I have read by the so-called "orthodox" around here, being called a heretic by them is not something I would be too upset about.

1,815 posted on 12/18/2006 7:15:05 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1795 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If you don't care then I don't care either. Ping to your heart's content. If something is heretical I will so state. It's MY OPINION, get it? In my opinion those who deny that Christ is God and Mary is the Mother of Christ, and therefore the Mother of God, not of Father or Spirit, but of Son, all equally God in nature but not in Person, ARE HERETICS. And, in my opinion, those who agree with heretics are HERETOCS themselves. Get it?
1,816 posted on 12/18/2006 7:15:13 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1805 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

P-Marlowe, what do you think about the title Mother of the Incarnate Christ? Would it solve any issues with Mary's title?


1,817 posted on 12/18/2006 7:18:11 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1815 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

Do read the acta of the Third Ecumenical Council. They are available on line in the Eerdmans translation.

'Christotokos' was the title Nestorius insisted on, and it was precisely because the title introduced a distinction between 'the one from the Virgin' and the Divine Logos that the Church has inisted on the title Theotokos as a guard of sound Christology.


1,818 posted on 12/18/2006 7:20:31 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1692 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Judging from some of the weird stuff I have read by the so-called "orthodox" around here, being called a heretic by them is not something I would be too upset about

At least I am not hiding what Church I belong to.

1,819 posted on 12/18/2006 7:20:56 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1815 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

Dear Blogger,

I'm entirely uninterested in the opinions of non-Catholic/non-Orthodox folks regarding these titles. Inability to understand them properly in context is likely a result of inability or refusal to accept what the Church has infallibly taught:

Mary is the Mother of God.


sitetest


1,820 posted on 12/18/2006 7:22:26 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1813 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,781-1,8001,801-1,8201,821-1,840 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson