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 ... 2,601-2,6202,621-2,6402,641-2,660 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; bornacatholic
Sola scriptura once again prevails

It does. Someone who doesn't know the older scriptures will never understand the new. Jesus' actions and words are all based on the tenet "It is written" and everything He does and says has its base in the Old Testament.

2,621 posted on 12/21/2006 9:37:10 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2611 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
"A) Activated pleasure centers do not a logical motivator make.

They sure can be.

<>"B) Who's talking about causes? I'm asking why you choose to make your decisions based on enjoyment."

I didn't say I based them on enjoyment. I said I get up, because I value life and that a sufficient reason for that is, becuase I enjoy it.

"What is the logic behind living for enjoyment?"

Logic is a process, not a philosophy.

"If it feels good, do it? You know this is not logic."

Apparently you didn't comprehend my last post.

Re: Everything can be known by observation and reason.

" Except perhaps why you got out of be this morning?"

You just don't like my answer.

"What's the real reason - or is it that underneath all the reasoning, there is something else?"

There is nothing else that isn't encompassed by love of life.

2,622 posted on 12/21/2006 9:43:28 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2589 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

LOL, ain't that the truth, brother


2,623 posted on 12/21/2006 9:52:08 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2608 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

Congrats, brother. That is heart-warming. 70th wedding anniversary. Tell me the Holy Spirit ain't part of that marriage...


2,624 posted on 12/21/2006 9:53:37 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2615 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; wagglebee
affect your status in the RCC

I am not in any orders such as monks or priests. The only "status" I worry about is my salvation. Obedience to the teachings of the Church, big and small, is an element of that. Of course, obedience requires participation of a questioning mind, but it also requires a will to understand the mind of the Church. In other words, testing of the message of the Church for internal consistency -- against the Scripture as you do or more broadly in its entirety -- is a step toward sanctified life, but if it becomes a sport, then it is a stumbling block rather than a useful step.

2,625 posted on 12/21/2006 10:01:04 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2618 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Not really. On this very thread we have had sola scripturists tell us Jesus gave His Mom to John because His brothers and sisters did not believe in Him or have Faith in Him. Scripture gives us hints as to her age - the age of her menstruating, for example.

He was, in this case, reacting to His Daughter publicly exhibiting Faith whereas His brothers and sisters did not believe in Him.

Of course, one can only speculate that He was secretly married to Magdalene...

BTW, Harley, you are a blast to dialogue with because you are smart and love Scripture.

However, your explanation is only one of many possible ones and it spiritualises away the actual words of Jesus.

Obviously, He had children

2,626 posted on 12/21/2006 10:02:12 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2611 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

Thanks, Dad began his last church when he was 85 after he returned from from a stint in the Peace Corps in Nicaragua. He is a firm believer that the Lord's call lasts until God calls you home or you mess up royally according to the scripture.


2,627 posted on 12/21/2006 10:03:13 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2624 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The scripture tells us that Mary is called "the mother of our Lord". You tell us she is not to be called "Mother of God", but the above logic would likewise prohibit the former title.

I'm not seeing that Elisabeth employed the phrase as a title, given that this is the only time in Scripture it is employed. Rather, Elisabeth, moved by the Spirit, refers to Mary as "the mother of our Lord" as a descriptor, no doubt to provide objective confirmation to Mary that she wasn't crazy and was indeed the mother of the Messiah King--which she was, just as David was His father.

Again, the problem is the implication that Mary is the mother of the totality of God, which would indeed place her in authority over Him. It needs to be emphasized that He is her Creator, God, and Lord first.

I never heard of this "justification". The justification I am familiar with is the Marriage at Cana story.

That's the usual example given, but the justification is the one I've heard repeatedly from Catholic friends and associates, both in RL and on the Web.

2,628 posted on 12/21/2006 10:07:50 AM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2607 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; bornacatholic
Someone who doesn't know the older scriptures will never understand the new.

I've spent a great deal of time in the Old Testament because I've always felt it was a clear representation of how God truly deals with people. The stories are not simply moral stories, but ones given for our instruction as to the way God acts towards mankind. However, many simply reject the Old Testament since it doesn't fit with their concept of God.

It's impossible to reconciled the sugary-sweet Christ surrounded by children and lambs we see today with the same God who rained fire or flooded the world on a disobedient people as described in the Old Testament. People have rejected the true God of scripture, setting up a God made in their image; worshiping all sorts of things but the true living God. If we truly understood our depravity, we would be falling on our knees begging forgiveness for our weakness and failings; not wearing shirts that states, "Jesus is my homeboy."

Fortunately God is rich in His grace and mercy. He calls out His people and we walk in a wilderness, sustained by His word, as we are led home.

2,629 posted on 12/21/2006 10:10:26 AM PST by HarleyD ("You in Your mercy have led forth the people which You have redeemed." Ex 15:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2621 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I'm not seeing that Elisabeth employed the phrase as a title

The issue is with your post 2,577 where you speculate that to a Jew motherhood is lordship. Unless Elisabeth was facetious, title shmitle, she did not exhibit such attitude.

but the justification is the one I've heard repeatedly from Catholic friends and associates

Either they are wrong yor you heard wrong. Mary is asked for her intercession, not to order Christ around.

2,630 posted on 12/21/2006 10:13:00 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2628 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Obviously, He had children

Is this new Catholic teaching? My, my; the things that are coming out of Rome these days.

2,631 posted on 12/21/2006 10:23:22 AM PST by HarleyD ("You in Your mercy have led forth the people which You have redeemed." Ex 15:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2626 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
"The danger with only using reason and logic, is that you have to be very careful what you base assumptions are."

I normally use the word rational, because that includes scrutinizing the evidence.

"I met a very interesting person who had very logical reasons for believing the world did not exist. He started with some flawed assumptions, but used correct logic and reasoning from there on. "

Puzzles are cute, but it wasn't a rational construction. When the conclusion contradicts reality, the logic is bad.

"Logic is a great tool, but a very fearsome master. If all I used was logic and reason, then I could find no reason not to kill all unproductive members of society."

Logic is a process to be used to examine relationships between things and discover truths. It can not be a master anymore than a voltmeter can be a master.

If you can find no justification for coming to the conclusion that you have no right to take the life of another, for any reason other than to protect your rights from imminent violation, then you are not being logical whatsoever. If you require an appeal to authority for justification. You are not being logical whatsoever.

"Some British doctors are using logic just like that to push for the killing of handicapped children."

That is socialism. It's a arbitrary philosophy, not logic. The philosphy that a few experts, or "representatives" have the rightful place and duty to dictate is also behind the bulk of American law also. Without a fundamental respect for individual life and rights, there is no logic to the philosophy.

2,632 posted on 12/21/2006 10:36:40 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2601 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"Who says it is wrong to violate someone's life? You? Sorry. You don't choose the rules for society in your world." Your respect for the rights of others is noted.

Cute. You know precisely what I mean. If not, read on.
"Society's conventions choose the rules."
No. The rules either involve the respect for the life, sovereignty of will and the rights of others, or there is arbitrary authoritarian rule by some through deceit and coercion. There is no other possibility.

But WHO determines what respects life? I mean, look in our own society. We have had over 40 million babies killed in the womb. A large number of folks in our society say that they weren't killing a life. You may say that they are. What makes your view any better than theirs? Convention? Some moral code? Who decided the moral code? Society has made baby-killing legal. On what basis can you possibly say society is wrong? Your grandiose idea about respecting life? They already determined that this wasn't a life. On what philosophical/theological/any-thing-alogical grounds can you possibly say that they are wrong? It is merely your opinion - which is worth no more than anyone else.

Also, this sovereignty of will stuff. Do they not have free will in your world? Can than not determine that baby killing or Spunkets decapitation is really okay? If not, the will is not sovereign but is captive to some unknown rule imposed by whom?


"If I am in Indonesia in a radical Muslim community, they believe it is right to take your life and will enter into bold celebrations as they parade your lifeless head around their community."

Rule by a few, by deceit and coecion.

You obviously know very little about Indonesia. Killing Christians is a noble thing for many (not just a few). Deceipt? Perhaps? But who determines that it is deceptive that killing Christians isn't really a good thing for the preservation of society?

'The community actually has determined, by their convention, that having you dead is what's right for them."

Others simply jail their victims. Same thing, different crowd of clowns and buffoons.

By what right do you call them clowns and buffoons? By your "moral code" which in reality is what is right in spunkets eyes. What makes spunkets opinions any greater than the Saudi jihadists? It is your opinion or your societies opinion. You have Zero grounds to say right and wrong. You can only say "like" or "dislike".

"You have no basis to say they are wrong. Right and wrong can not exist in your world. Only opinion. "

My basis was given above. The only other choice is arbitrary authoritarian rule by some, using the methods of deceit and coercion.


What says deceipt and coercion are wrong? You can only say you don't like them, not that they are wrong.

"You may not like it that you are being tortured and killed, but you can not say it is wrong."

I'll say whatever I want and I'll also fight them.

And well you may. And Osama will say to you that you are a fool and that you have no right to arbitrarily rule over his sovereisn will. And as he kills you, his people will rejoice. How can you say they were wrong. It was merely your opinion. "Society's convention already dictated that it was okay."

I suppose they justified it with a vote. Now where have i seen that before? ...

Lots of places. But in order to make your claims to a moral code, you have to have something above human opinion that a)Life is sacred. b)Individual rights are to respected. c)Right and wrong do OBJECTIVELY exist. The ONLY way that this is possible is if there is a Moral LAWGIVER who is above human opinion. It MUST be above human opinion for it must be objective if you are to conclude that right and wrong really exist. Fight all you want. You will be fighting for an opinion, not an objective truth. And, knowing the natural tendency towards evil on the part of humanity, you will lose.
2,633 posted on 12/21/2006 10:42:26 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2586 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
"By definition, He who you describe as "god" can not be God. God is not one who changes, who was once one being and then another. "

God came to teach who He was and what He was about. Seems He missed your definition and could have saved Himself the trip. Of course it's more likely He Knew about it and just disregarded it on the grounds that it was ridiculous.

2,634 posted on 12/21/2006 10:44:56 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2603 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The issue is with your post 2,577 where you speculate that to a Jew motherhood is lordship. Unless Elisabeth was facetious, title shmitle, she did not exhibit such attitude.

And yet Yeshua had to quote the Scriptures to substantiate His claim to be David's Lord and greater than His forefather.

And yet even an Apostle made a point to say that Yeshua's lineage was from David "according to the flesh."

Elizabeth greeted Mary as the mother of a king, of the King. But she did not call her the Mother of God. The former was a matter of fact; the latter is blasphemy. The former still allows for the King to be greater than His earthly parent if He was in fact her Creator (her "father" in effect); the latter implies that Mary is God's Creator, that without her there would be no God at all. That's not the intent, but that's the implication, and that's why I reject the title. Words mean things.

Either they are wrong yor you heard wrong. Mary is asked for her intercession, not to order Christ around.

I did not hear wrong, and as for the latter, perhaps you should read some of your own literature. Alphonsus de Liguori’s famous book, The Glories of Mary, which was originally published in 1750 AD and has since appeared in over 800 editions, includes the following tidbits:

Shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.”

“Many things,” says Nicephorus, “are asked from God, and are not granted: they are asked from Mary, and are obtained.”

“At the commands of Mary all obey—even God!”

--De Liguori, Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary, ed. Eugene Grimm (Brooklyn: Redemptionist Fathers, 1931), pp. 169, 180, 137

I know there are many Catholics who would reject the above, particularly the latter quote. I am sure you would too, so don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth. Nevertheless, the popularity of the book proves that many Catholics fall right into the trap I've expressed concern about, of elevating Mary above Christ!

Perhaps you should see to cleaning up your own house before castigating those outside of it.

2,635 posted on 12/21/2006 11:17:59 AM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2630 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I reject the title

Do what you will, but do not pretend to dress it up in any scriptural analysis.

I haven't read Alphonsus de Liguori’s book and will not comment on short quotes without context.

castigating those outside of it

Who did I castigate?

2,636 posted on 12/21/2006 11:31:09 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2635 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

Wow. It is bracing to hear of vows honored and honored in witness to Christ. You must be very proud of your Dad


2,637 posted on 12/21/2006 11:48:45 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2627 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Do what you will, but do not pretend to dress it up in any scriptural analysis.

Seeing as you've not managed to poke any holes in that analysis . . .

Who did I castigate?

I was using "you" in the collective plural sense.

2,638 posted on 12/21/2006 11:49:17 AM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2636 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"You must be very proud of your Dad"

At times. Remember it is a blessing and somewhat of a curse. There is no retirement here but the retirement benefits there are beyond our ability to think or dream.


2,639 posted on 12/21/2006 11:52:56 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2637 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

The hole is Elisabeth calling Our Lady "Mother of my Lord". This contradicts your post 2,577 where you speculate that to a Jew motherhood is lordship. You said nothing that fixes the hole.


2,640 posted on 12/21/2006 11:54:04 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2638 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,601-2,6202,621-2,6402,641-2,660 ... 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