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/
I understand and I agree with you. The Jews, however, did not mix much with non-Semites, so chances are that they would still retain Semitic features. Of course, soemone will bring us Queen Sheeba. And the fact is there are albino Africans. Everything is possible.
If Mary looked anything unusual it probably would have been mentioned. I don't think she stood out in the crowd.
Again, all I am saying, is that te Middle East is probably full of actresses whose "archtype" is more likely to have been that of Mary's. To seek out an unrelated race, beuatiful nonetheless, is puzzling.
As for Gibson's Passion, his portrayal was decidedly 19th century Roman Catholic rendition with noted extra-biblical and extra-canonical imagery.
Arguing on the basis of opinions of a condemned heretic like Origen will not win you many point in this forum. (And if you don't accept the judgement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which condemned him, you might take a look at his highly speculative Scriptural commentaries, and see whether you think his ideas about the pre-existence of the soul are 'Biblical' before you consider him a trustworthy judge or source.)
The Church, East and West, has feasts based on the account of Mary's early life given in the Proto-Evangelium (major feasts in the East), titles St. James, the First Bishop of Jerusalem, "Brother of the Lord", based on its account. Your assertion, based on the judgement of Origen is hardly convincing.
"But Christ the Savior could not violate the physical integrity of His mother,"
The scriptures say that Mary was unclean due to the birth and could not touch any hallowed thing nor enter the synagogue until her 40 days of purification were complete.
Luke 2:22-24, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
Lev. 12:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled."
Hmmm, His "conception" (Incarnation was nothing human and or "natural," so why would His birth be? Would you say that His human death, then, was exactly like the death of all humans?
The Christology which the Fathers carefully guarded against all sorts of heresies, states that there is nothing entirely human about Christ; we cannot separate Him from His divinity any more than we can separate Him form His humanity. Yet He remains unconfused, both God and man, in one Person.
A no point was the Incarnate Christ only human. To claim otherwise is to separate Him from His divinity.
(If you can answer that question, then you can know why it was fitting for Mary to keep the days of purification required by the Law of Moses.)
-A8
The Holy Land is famous for being a crossroads of the world. But since you mention "Semites," there are other Semites in the regions besides the Jews. We also have Philistines, and Hittites, and Greeks in the area. The "Arabs," are not really a nationality but related tribes which married with the Syrians and others when they conquered the Fertile Crescent. Maybe their appearance is a fairer representation of first century features than the modern Israelis who very greatly in appearance. Then we have the institution of marriage. Royal harums can produce widely different offspring. Selim "the sot" the Sultan at the time of the Battle of Lepanto was blond-haired and blue-eyed. Solomon's children who numbered in the hundreds, probably varied greatly in appearance.
Fifth Ecumenical Council.
And as I said, read his stuff. I think you'll agree with the Fathers on this one.
Marking.
But there is no better place for them to be either. Keep on setting a good example for everyone, God will take care of the miracles of changed hearts and minds.
Well, since no one here is making that claim, you're talking to yourself.
The fact remains Christ was born in the natural way of childbirth of a woman who required a savior just like the rest of us.
Post 283.
-A8
-A8
Yes, I read 286. It makes no sense.
-A8
I would merely say that Roman Catholics should bear with non RC interpretation of Scripture in films, as non RC Christans have had to be so patient with so many films, up through Gibson's "Passion."
Romans 14 & 15
Jews are, of course, the lineal descendants of Abraham and Sarah. However, despite the evident genetic linkage with the ancient Middle East, many Jews, including most in the United States, are European in appearance. Many of Israel's leaders have looked as if they would be more at home in Warsaw or Moscow than the Israel of Bible times.
There is no Scriptural evidence for the cult that has grown up around the adoration of Mary. And there is certainly no need to believe Mary's anatomy differed from any other mother, either pre or post delivery.
The miracle is Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. That is where Christian's should be focusing attention.
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.