'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."

Calvin was a heretic and a liar. (And those were his good points).

I 'spose you missed my post where I broke the back of sola scriptura on the rack of absurdity... here it is enjoy...

Hmm...I guess the Church has taught error for more'n 2000 years and it has been dead wrong about Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

*Ok, I'm gonna try my hand at this sola scriptura stuff. Unguided by the Church who wrote and canonised the New Testament, I will take a look at this Scripture and explain its obvious meaing...

And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.

*Ok, it is obvious what Scripture is telling us. Other than a Father, who refers to a young woman as "daughter?" We read in the Scriptures the woman had an issue of blood for twelves years. IOW, she prolly just started mensturating. "Twelve" is, obviously a reference to when she began her period, because "for" can also mean "since" accrd to some scholars.

Prolly, Jesus had a daughter out of wedlock and she was having a tough time with mensturation etc. but she didn't want to embarass Him publicly by identifying Him as her Father, and thereby jeopardising His Ministry, so she just touched His garment...

And, young women were supposd to stay outsiedde the camp when mensturating etc

Hey, that was easy. And fun, and iconoclastic...

What? You say that means that Jesus was a sinner? Well, whatever. It is there in Scripture and trying to deny the obvious is just foolish.

Besides, scholars of today know FAR more than the poorly educated, superstitious, women-hating Church back then... (name one of them who had a College Degree?..or Access to Strong's Dictionary)

Anyways,so what would it matter if Jesus had a daughter? It doesn't specifically say He fathered a child out of wedlock anyways. Prolly, He had maried (Magadalen?) secretly and exchanged vows quietly...In any event, Fathering a daughter was quite common for religious men of his age - even if he, or they, had sinned or not. Children were valuable and they were useful to care for you when you got old..

Besides, whether He was married or not, Jesus had a Daughter, obviously, He identifed her as such and yet He still died for our sins and God still accepted His Sacrifice and we are still Saved.

What is the big deal?

Let's just unite around that essential and agree to disagree about all of these nettlesome, and, face-it, inconsequential inessentials. They only separate us and make for long arguements...

2,185 posted on 12/19/2006 11:40:02 AM PST by bornacatholic

*Your response is just question begguing and arguing outside of scripture.

My answer to you is Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (King James Version) 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

*How do you know what you read is suposed to be in the new testament. The new testament has no list of books that ought be included.

2 Peter 3 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

*Who told you what Paul wrote was scripture? Scripture doesn't. Who said what the First Pope was writing about was included in scripture. There is no evidence there in scripture. You are just making unscriptual assumptions.

16As also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction.

*Ahem...

1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

*What? THe old or the new testament?

Per these verses, one sees that 1)All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righeteousness.

Profitable does not mean the only source. And it does not say what is to be included and excluded form scripture. You can tahnk tghe Catholic Church for deciding what would and wouldn't be included in scripture. The Catholic Church preceeded the New Tsetament.

2)Per Peter, Paul's letters were Scripture.

*Nope. It doesn't identify any particular one - so, again, you are just assuming what we decided would be in scripture is scripture

3)Per Paul, the gospels which contain the account of Christ's rising from the dead were Scripture.

*It does not say that at all....

Considering that the account of the Bereans is getting towards the END of Paul's ministry and the New Testament books circulated widely in the early church,

*It does not say that in scripture

it is not unfathomable that they were also looking at New Testament Scripture when comparing what Paul was verbally telling them in person.

*SCripture does not sdaythat

You have NO Scripture to indicate that they weren't. Likely, they were.

*THAT is sola scriptura? That is like believing the Govt can do whateverr is not prohibited them in the Constitution. Just the opposite is the truth.

10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Scripture does not say they read the new testament

Good Lord, man. THe Scripture says Faith comes by HEARING.Did the bereans have talking books?

Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world

They standard set by the Bereans is that everything is to be tested by Scripture.

*So, the old testament is your sole rule of Faith?

They didn't wait for some church council to interpret it for them. They took the advice of Jesus and "search(ed) the Scriptures).

*Fine. You are stuck with the olfd testament

They didn't have to wait for a church bureaucracy to do anything, for as John said in 1 John. Speaking to the "little children", John said "1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.

*Really? Then why did Jesus establish a Church if it was unnecesary?

But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

*But, they didn't.

Of course, some still require teaching because they refuse to dig into the word and find out for themselves.

*Then, you are disputing your own Rule of Faith.

They are either too lazy or have been duped into thinking they can not understand it on their own. As the writer of Hebrews said: Hebrews 5 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil

*So, ylur own Sole Rule of Faith contradcits itself.

Thank you for illustrating sola scriptura is non-sensical and self-refuting

Scripture does no such thing. You are making claims for yourself that are clearly unscriptural.

On the one hand you claim that "brothers" must mean that Mary had other children when it is clear "brothers" has a different meaning than what you attach to it. And, we have the witness of Church, Ecumenical Councils,and Tradition to back that up.

On the other hand, when Jesus calls a young woman Daughter you say He had no children.

That makes no sense.

I have a Daughter I am a Father. Can I both have a daughter and not be a Father? It appears I can in sola sciptura world

It appears that the real meaning of scripture is simply what you say it is. And there is no scriptual authority for your ownself that you can appeal to. You aint mentioned in the Bible.

Now, why don't you show me where anyone else in the Bible called a young woman Daughter daughter and then maybe we would have something objective to go on. Otherwise, all we got is your personal opinons which, as we have illlustrated repeatedly, are wildly opposed to orthodoxy throughout the ages.

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.