'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

" Huh? God is subject to physics?"

Yes. Since He is real, He is physical. That is not to say, that He is physical as in the physics of this world. In this world, He must work within the physics He provided for.

" Hub? God can be "understood?""

Yes, otherwise He never would have said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.", in Matt 5:48. The same applies to His teaching. There's no point in teaching if the subject matter can't be known and understood.

"With all due respect, your theology is not known to Christianity. Please reveal what denomination, chruch, sect, whatever you belong to. Otherwise any meaningful discussion is pointless."

I prefer to keep the my discussion cntext free, that is non-axiomatic. Certainly what I have said can be contrasted with what anyone else says, or holds.

"He is making up his own theology, using the "sola scriptura" method,"

No to both. I do not make things up. I base my conclusions on observation and rational contemplation of the evidence at hand.

Re: "The man, from his own free will determines the character and makeup of his spirit and thus the destiny of his soul.

"That is anti-Scriptural. ...For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. "

God's grace is the love He extended in all He did for us. The fundamental staement given by God regarding salvation is given in Matt 12:32, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." This requires that individual decisions be made through an excercise of free will. It does not provide justificaiton to boast. In fact when one knows and understands the Holy Spirit and recognizes the extensions of love given, they would never boast. That would be contrary to the very spirit one judges as perfect.

Re: Man is in the image and likeness of God.

" Pre-Fall, that statement is correct.

There was no fall. Man is in the image and likeness of God and nothing has changed. God certainly never changed man and man is incapable of changing the nature of man. Man can only exercise free will and that is enough.

Re: " He (man) is also a trinity. The man is the right hand man of his soul."

That is heresy.

On what grounds?

" What faith do you follow?"

Christian.

When you rely upon "convention" alone, you have lost the idea of truth altogether. You can not claim something is good or bad. You just claim it is conventional or unconventional and you like it or dislike it.

This article illustrates my point:

What basis, morality?

The April 2004 cover of Discover magazine poses the question, ‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article’s author details the work of postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions.

As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, ‘A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.’1

Is Greene right? As the magazine asks, ‘Are right and wrong wired into our brains?’ The inquiry is a false one. Rather than questioning whether or not evolution has hardwired morality into our brains, the researcher should be questioning how the evolutionary hypothesis can claim anything is right or wrong at all.

For an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical ‘soup.’ The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just one’s own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself—who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be.

Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses people’s questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, ‘People sometimes say to me, “If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?”’

Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. ‘Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,’ he says. ‘You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.’2

Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society.

Biblical Christians have a much more satisfying and rational point of view.

In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law. God, the moral lawgiver, also revealed His moral standards more perfectly and directly following creation, by way of the Ten Commandments revealed to the children of Israel and subsequently in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.

Although man’s moral intuition has been severely damaged through the effects of sin (from the Curse of Genesis 3), each human being can see right and wrong; we are all without excuse before God and man for our evil actions.

Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.

But, evolutionary ‘science’ will likely never recognize this simple truth. While continuing in its quest to overturn the existence of God in the mind of society, it is inadvertently revealing the truth regarding the ghastly implications of evolutionary philosophy. With the Discover magazine article, we are witnessing the ‘leading edge’ of evolutionary research drawing towards the inevitable and logical conclusion that in a world without a God there is no objective basis for moral truth. There is only human preference. A frightening, anarchical proposition.

The question is, will society continue to blindly follow this flawed theory of origins and life?

References
Carl Zimmer, Whose Life Would You Save? Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution. Discover, p. 60, April 2004. Return to text.
Ibid, p. 64. Return to text.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0511basis.asp

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.