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/
Dear Blogger,
"Okay then, I believe that what sitetest said is dishonest, but nobody is accusing Sitetest of actually being a Dishonest person."
Could be.
Sitetest may be saying things that aren't true, that are even deceitful. However, it may be that sitetest is unaware of the untruth of the things he says, or unaware that the source of those things was being dishonest.
Or even further, it may be that sitetest has some inkling of the dishonesty of what he's saying, but someone has a gun to his family's collective heads, and has said, "Say these dishonest things, or I'll kill your family."
Then, we might say, at most, that sitetest is being materially dishonest, but it would be difficult to say that sitetest is a dishonest person.
I hesitate to explore the meanings of the words "heresy" and "heretic," at least from a Catholic position, here in this thread because I think it's kind of off-topic.
But properly speaking, in the precise language of the Church, formal heretics unrepentant at death are damned. Folks who merely utter heresies may well belong to other categories.
sitetest
I could be talking to an atheist, a non-trinitarian, a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, anyone. Among Christians there are so many denominations, so many splinters, each having their own "flavor" that it is impossible to know what the other person believes unless it is clearly stated.
Neither you, nor others in your camps so to say, have clearly identified what denomination they belong to and what personal beliefs they hold. It makes a discussion a lot more meaningful if someone openly states "I don't believe Mary is a Mother of God" rather than present an ambiguous "Protestant" facade.
I thank you for your link. I take it that you are trinitarian yet somehow deny that Mary if the Mother of God?
The internet is full of non-trinitarian links. Helps yourself.
Dear xzins,
"Are you saying that Mary is the Mother of the Father?"
See my post at #1838.
Thanks,
sitetest
If you don't think she is the Mother of the Father, then who do you think she is the mother of ... Specifically?
I could be talking to an atheist, a non-trinitarian, a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, anyone. Among Christians there are so many denominations, so many splinters, each having their own "flavor" that it is impossible to know what the other person believes unless it is clearly stated.
***********
Agreed. It would be very helpful if posters would identify themselves either in their taglines or home pages.
Dear xzins,
"If you don't think she is the Mother of the Father, then who do you think she is the mother of ... Specifically?"
I already answered the direct question.
As well, I dealt, in #1838, with your analogy.
You don't like that some folks see "Mary, Mother of Jesus" not followed by "Mary, Mother of God" as indicative of heresy.
Thus, you analogized that those who say, "Mary, Mother of God," but who do not append, "God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity" could thus be similarly held as speaking heresy.
I explained in #1838 why from the perspective of an Apostolic Christian, that doesn't work out that way.
If you don't like my explanation, that's fine.
But don't badger me, re-asking your questions when I've already offered my answers and explanations. That would suggest that you haven't even read what I posted.
sitetest
Perhaps for you, that is subjectively true. But I am speaking about objective truth. Sources outside of myself say that human liberals cannot hatch from eggs [referring to the example from FK], because then they would no longer be human, by scientific definition. Oh... I guess then they aren't human :-)
First of all, don't get me started on whether liberals are human. In all fairness, that deserves its own thread. :)
The point I was making is that an already predisposed, like-minded source cannot count as a legitimate "outside source". You wouldn't allow me to say my Reformed theology claims are true because the outside sources of Calvin and Luther agreed with them, would you? :)
What sources would you like me to state? I wasn't there, so I use historical evidence AND I ascertain whether the witnesses corroborate the history.
You KNOW how I would answer that question. :) Historical evidence is a wonderful source for supporting the validity of a proposition. The problem arises when all the historians one is relying upon are already vested towards a particular bias and outcome. One is free to believe that they all are credible "anyway", but this is strictly an argument of faith, not of objectivity.
How do you know George Washington was a president?
I'd use the same sources as you. The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president. I'm not saying that all the Fathers were corrupted and crooks. I am saying that human nature is human nature. Unsubstantiated errors will multiply exponentially. Well meaning and good people often do take a bad situation and make it worse. Had scripture been their base, instead of their self-proclaimed authority to be equal with scripture, then of course matters would be much different today.
I told you I accepted your excuse. I don't expect an apology.
I take it that you are trinitarian yet somehow deny that Mary if the Mother of God?
Jesus Christ is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. The Bible gives her the Title of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. That Title is sufficient.
The Bible does not specifically give her the Title of "The Mother of God." Neither will I. You go down that road and the next thing you know you will be giving her all kinds of unbliblical titles, like:
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.
More to follow.
She is "Mary, the Mother of Jesus". I am certain she is more than pleased and more than satisfied with that title and somewhat embarrassed by the others.
Paragraphs are our friends.
;-)
So, your contention is that, "all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48) IS NOT in the Bible? Or do you know that it is there and steadfastly disobey it? As far as I know, that phrase (possibly "modernized" but still containing the word "blessed") appears in EVERY Protestant translation. So, why the uneasiness about following the dictates of scripture?
If anybody ever lights a match on this thread all these straw men will turn into a blazing inferno.
I didn't see anyone insisting that I was a heretic because I didn't call her blessed. But if it helps, then she is Blessed. That is not a title, BTW, but simply a statement of fact. Show me anywhere in scripture where she was called "The Mother of God". Show me where I must use that "Title" or be considered a heretic.
She is the Mother of Jesus. That is a unique title. Her calling was indeed unique, but she was a human being just like the rest of us. A mere mortal.
Other people are called Blessed. That is not a unique title.
The worst kind.
Luke must have been a heretic. He said, "Mary the mother of Jesus" and did not follow it with "Mary the Mother of God."
Inspired by God, you'd think he'd have known the rules.
/sarcasm
Religious "blue-bloods" are the worst.
They think because granddaddy was a pastor/priest/religious leader that their blood line gains them automatic entry into the kingdom.
In some circles, the mere mention of a former "altar boy" seems to adhere for generations. :>)
ABSOLUTELY awesome post, PM.
Co-redemptrix....it almost does make one wonder which of the 3 persons of the Trinity has been moved aside to make way for Mary.
In the world of heresy, that's far more eligible a candidate than the poor soul who quotes Luke and says, "Mary the Mother of Jesus."
Dear xzins,
LOL!
But you know enough about us to know that Catholics and Orthodox don't hold folks accountable for things authoratively defined after they're long dead.
We don't hold any of the evangelists as heretics for failing to explicate the doctrine of the Trinity, either.
;-)
sitetest
Yes, I guess Luke had no idea that Jesus was the Son of God.
He had access only to as many as 11+1 living Apostles, James the brother of John being deceased by then.
That kind of resource and a dolt like Luke could never have put it together.
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.