'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/

[SoCal Pubbie]

Within any group of people, there are those who fall outside the norm. Caucasians with broader noses and thicker lips and Chinese with blond hair. The ancient Hebrews also intermarried, though not to a great extent, so there would random recessive genes floating around to pop up every now and then.

However, if you want absolute fidelity to scientific accuracy, I'd advise not watching any movie, at all costs. Upper class women didn't trowel on the makeup like a tart on the Titanic, Patton didn't speak like George C. Scott, and Roman soldiers didn't have stirrups on their saddles like they did in Gladiator.

Now, in this case, the analogy of comparing an Asian actress to Keisha Castle-Hughes for the role of Mary is so absurd as to be comical. Furthermore, if you compare this photo of her to the illustration you provided (which I was well aware of, BTW), there are more similarities, save for skin tone, than differences, certainly when compared to the typical White American type like Jim Caviezel, or the actress who played Mary in the Passion.

[Antoninus]

I'd rather "nail" my wife any day of the week, and thrice on Sunday, than embrace the notion that I can get closer to God by shunning her!

Nice. Classy post. I guess we know what your "god" really is.

[bornacatholic]

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4963

[Iscool]

Some Protestants refuse to accept the fact that in the Mediterranean and Balkan cultures the term "brothers" and "sister" is used for first cousins. In Serbia, for instance, the first counsins are considered "brothers" which is to say "the same blood," so that no possible marriage could take place between them. In fact, the Serbian language doesn't even have a word for a "first cousin."

It's this kind of nonsense that comes out of beliefs based on sola scriptura heresy, imo, taken out of context of the historical, geographic, cultural and lignuistic setting of the Gospels, and misinterpreted in the present-day mindset and New World culture, based on a translation of a translation.

In fact, the Serbian language doesn't even have a word for a "first cousin."

But fortunately for we bible believers, the Greek language knows the difference between a brother and a cousin...And the Apostles knew it as well...

G80
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos'
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.

G4773
συγγενής
suggenēs
soong-ghen-ace'
From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).

Don't you just hate it when the 'Greek proves the bible right???

So much for your history lesson...

[Campion]

But fortunately for we bible believers, the Greek language knows the difference between a brother and a cousin

Evidently it doesn't know the difference between a nephew and a brother, though, because Abraham calls Lot his "brother" in the Genesis of the Greek Septuagint just like he does in the Hebrew ... but we later find out that Lot is really his brother's son.

And it evidently doesn't know the difference between "brother" and "half-brother," because the Gospels call Philip the Tetrarch Herod's "brother," while secular history records that he was really Herod's half-brother.

And since it doesn't know the difference between brother and half-brother, how do you know that Jesus' "brothers" weren't children of Joseph's from an earlier marriage?*

I mean, until you find that elusive verse that calls them "sons of Mary". You are going to find that verse for us, aren't you?

(*In fact, the parentage of some of Jesus' "brothers" is identified in Scripture for us already. James the Less and Joses are identified as "brothers of the Lord" and their parentage is specified ... and they aren't sons of Mary and Joseph.)

[Campion]

Yes, she was human, which indicates that she was indeed a sinner

This is very bad anthropology, because it equates sin with human nature. Sin degrades and dehumanizes human nature; it does not define it. When we sin, we don't "become human" or "become more human," we become, strictly speaking, less than human, and closer to the animal.

[Iscool]

21. And finally St. Ildephonsus of Toledo gathers together almost all of her titles of honor in this salutation: "O my Lady, my Sovereign, You who rule over me, Mother of my Lord . . . Lady among handmaids, Queen among sisters."[26]

Looks like a 'goddess' to me...

35. But the Blessed Virgin Mary should be called Queen, not only because of her Divine Motherhood, but also because God has willed her to have an exceptional role in the work of our eternal salvation.
38. From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God's design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation,"[49] in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ "in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race";

What a cock and bull story...This piece is cleary designed to 'sell' the queen of heaven myth to the folks that don't read the bible...

[Texas_shutterbug]

What is to be understood about the "material" aspect of virginity? Can one claim that a virgin who is not a "material" virgin is any less virtuous than one who is not?

I think not in ANY way.

[Iscool]

And since it doesn't know the difference between brother and half-brother, how do you know that Jesus' "brothers" weren't children of Joseph's from an earlier marriage?*

Well I don't...And I also don't know if Mary preferred Pistaccio ice cream over Rocky Road...

Is that really your argument???

[alnick]

Personally, I'll take St. Augustine's opinion over yours:

Not mine, but the Bible. Romans 3:23.

We'll just have to disagree. :-)

[Campion]

Is that really your argument???

Still waiting for that Bible verse that calls anyone other than Jesus a "son of Mary" or "daughter of Mary".

Still waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...

[Bigg Red]

Please know that you are doing right by your daughters by telling them "no". Believe me, I have seen far too many parents let the crying get the children their way. By giving into the crying they are actually harming the kid instead of helping him to learn. Such children grow up miserable because their parents, by not exerting external controls while the children were young, never taught them how to develop internal controls.

Sorry to hear your little ones are sick. It's no picnic.

[Texas_shutterbug]

Sex is very much a a vital component of the human experience, although not a vital component of every individual's human experience.

Otherwise, none of us would be here. :0

[mockingbyrd]

While I know that it is right it doesn't make it easier on me right now. I keep telling hubby that we will be glad we did when they are thirteen and older, they're now three and 20 months. Still, making those tough calls which is necessary because of Original Sin, is harder on me than labor. And that's how I read Genesis.

On the other hand, I know that they find security in boundaries.

[mockingbyrd]

forgot to add...thank you for the cybersupport. In the day of the overindulgent parent, I often feel alone and like the big bad guy...I appreciate your words of encouragement.

[adiaireton8]

Like fasting, this kind of abstinence is viewed as a temporary condition.

It is *accidentally* temporary, not *essentially* temporary. It is *accidentally* temporary because typically one or the other spouse is subject to temptation. But for those not subject to such temptation, abstinence need not be temporary, otherwise a married couple would be obligated to engage in sexual intercourse long after both spouses had, on account of advanced age or some other condition, ceased to have a desire for sexual intercourse. And therefore, since Mary and Joseph were not in such a state as to be subject to this sort of temptation, they could, without any sinfulness, or injustice toward one another, abstain from sexual intercourse permanently.

-A8

[HarleyD]

And that is exactly what this is, a cult of the Virgin Mary. I was reading tonight where a picture of Mary was place above a picture of the Trinity in the Vatican in 1864. Sad really. I'd love to go to the Vatican and redecorate.

I wonder what John, Peter, Paul or even Mary would have thought if someone had said, "Say, Virgin Mary. I heard how Jesus just popped out of you without destroying your virginity like light passing through glass. Must have been a big surprise on your hubby." They'd be laughed out of the Jerusalem Council.

Honestly, people come up with the wackiest idea based upon nothing more than some medieval superstition nonsense that was probably though up by some little monk who had too much time on his hands. Everyone just sat around saying, "Ooooohhhh, Friar Bob. We think you're on to something." The trouble is you would think we'd be clever enough by now to understand.

[Texas_shutterbug]

"And therefore, since Mary and Joseph were not in such a state as to be subject to this sort of temptation, they could, without any sinfulness, or injustice toward one another, abstain from sexual intercourse permanently."

Even Christ was tempted by Satan. Even if we agree that Mary and Joseph abstained, why should we believe that they were not subject to sexual temptation?

[Bigg Red]

You are most welcome. I remember those days well. Hang in there. It gets much worse later. :-)

They are such darlings, though, at that age, aren't they? I have fond memories of their delight in learning about the world, their sense of wonder.

My children were also close in age. They are now 34, 32, 30, and 28. (Yes, I was on the 2-year plan. ;-)

[adiaireton8]

Simplifying a bit, there are two ways to be tempted: externaly or internally. To be tempted internally means that one's own disordered desires play a role in the temptation. Jesus had no disordered desires. Therefore, the devil could truly tempt Him externally [the way Adam and Eve were originally tempted], but not internally, i.e. not by making use of His [Jesus's] disordered desires, since Jesus had no disordered desires.

So the fact that Jesus was tempted [externally] does not nullify my previous point about permanent abstinence during marriage being permissible when neither spouse is subject to temptation, because there I was talking about *internal* temptation. And Mary did not have any disordered desires, and Joseph likewise, presumably at least did not have disordered sexual desires.

-A8