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/
1)Of course
2)miraculous is the only way.
That's the beauty of this. No matter what exactly happened, it as a beautiful miracle, one that people still marvel 2000 years later.
I haven't seen this movie and I'm not familiar with the actress, but I'm half American Indian (The rest is Irish, Scottish, and German) and I've had people tell me I look Jewish and even Russian. Ironically, only members of my own tribe tend to recognise me as an Indian based on my own appearance, and even then only some of them noticed it right away. So I would suggest half-whatever really say much about one's appearance.
On a more important note, I think I'll avoid this one. While I could probably let some of the other theological issues slide the idea of St. Mary "with attitude" is a little much for me.
Is that a "fact?" Is there a biblical verse that says Christ was born in a "natural" way?
Heretofor, my efforts betray a too close kinsmanship with Pelagius :)
And the Incarnation is not a miracle? Is there anything about Christ that we should not focus on?
God Bless. Your reward in Heaven will be great. Keep up your good work. You have a real gift
Of course they do. Don't forget that a very large East European Jewish community comes from Khazars who are not Semitic but Caucasian. Then there are the Spanish Jews and the Ethiopian Jews with their own genetic lineage.
But we are talking about a girl who was came from a village in the heart of Israel, where little if any of the global gene pool mixing took place. If she looked anything out of the oridnary some mention would have been made.
Portraying her as a spoiled teenager is only insult to injury that completes the false impression that somehow people were always "just like us" and ethnically mixed and indistinct as we would like them to be.
Societies were a lot more ethnically and culturally distinct 2,000 years ago then today. Today it is absurd to speak of any pure race, except maybe for some isolated tribes, and even then it is a sretch.
But that doesn't mean we don't know what the Israelites looked like 2,000 years ago. Mary was born in a village in the heart of Israel not subject to too many ethnic upheavals. I seriously doubt there were many blond and blue-eyed memebrs of her community. If she looked anything out of the oridnary it would have been noticed. We therefore must assume that she looked like an oridnary Israeli girl in that time and place.
Mary was most certainly not a teenager with an attitude. Such distorition is an attempt to make Mary more "acceptable" to our current faddish mindset so that we can "relate" to her.
Most excellent post and point. Let me know if you ever get a response.
Jesus was sinless and did not need the baptism of repentance but submitted to baptism out of obedience to the law. Mary was impure due to the blood of birth and needed the purification rite physically and spiritually. The two obediences are not the same.
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."
Yes indeed. In addition, this scripture directly contradicts the opening words of the Protoevangelium of James:
1. In the records of the twelve tribes of Israel was Joachim, a man rich exceedingly; and he brought his offerings double, saying: There shall be of my superabundance to all the people, and there shall be the offering for my forgiveness to the Lord for a propitiation for me.
The passage in Luke speaks of turtledoves or pigeons, a poor man's sacrifice according to:
Lev. 12:7c-8 : " 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "
How strange that if Mary's father was so rich, that she was so poor right after marriage. It seems odd to me that if we are to accept the Protoevangelium as the source of so many Marian doctrines, that the opening words of the document so categorically contradict scripture.
Recall that Jesus was asked (Matt 21:23) "By what authority are you doing these things?" and He replied by asking a question about John the Baptist. Is it wrong to imitate my Lord? Jesus's baptism is highly relevant to understanding properly Mary's purification.
There is no Scriptural evidence for the cult that has grown up around the adoration of Mary.
First, there is no Scriptural evidence for the cult that grew up around 'sola scriptura', called Protestantism. So why are you one? Second, Catholics do not *adore* Mary in the technical sense of 'adore', for adoration is reserved for God alone.
And there is certainly no need to believe Mary's anatomy differed from any other mother, either pre or post delivery.
If Christ corrupts or injures the physical integrity of Mary, there are serious theological implications regarding the relation between grace and nature. That is part of the reason why the Fifth Ecumenical Council declared Mary "ever-virgin".
Perhaps you didn't see the irony of saying, "The miracle is Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. That is where Christian's should be focusing attention" and following it immediately with a picture of a book about Mary.
-A8
Uh huh...Sure...I also didn't find a verse that says Mary did not take the subway to and from the Synagogue...Does that mean~~~~???
Hey, God says stay away from that 'Queen of Heaven' stuff, stay away from worshipping goddesses, don't eat those little cookies, etc...Stay away from a religion that has priests wearing long robes...Stay away from that religion that forbids marriage...Do not even build graven images, let alone pray to them...God told Peter to let us know that Apostles don't allow people to bow in front of them...God warned us about religions that corrupt the word of God...
You don't have to be a mental giant to see that God warned us about Your religion...
Mary could not claim to have delivered a child and tell the Jewish priests that His brith was miraculous. Therefore, as far as the world was concerned, she had an "ordinary child" born "naturally," which would make her "impure" for 40 days.
The fact is that the early Church, and her contemporaries (i.e. +Ignatius) considered her to be the immaculate Mother of God.
"Fifth Ecumenical Council."
____________________________
When did this council meet?
Obviosuly you have an axe to grind. Since you can't prove that Jesus' brothers were Mary's biological children, you are now unloading a whole bunch of prejudices as a substitute.
I have nothing more to say to you.
"...Christ was born in the natural way of childbirth..."
____________________________
Isn't this impossible IF we are to believe that Mary's hymen remained intact after Jesus was born? Isn't this also a part of the argument about her perpetual virginity (her hymen remained unbroken)? If true than it could not be a natural birth of a physical body.
Interesting. As a Catholic I always suspected this was part of the reasoning behind the attacks on Our Lady. I always got the impression that most Protestants believe that all saints are equal in heaven too.
"Is that a "fact?" Is there a biblical verse that says Christ was born in a "natural" way?"
________________________________
If it was not a physical body than what was nailed to the cross?
"The fact is that the early Church, and her contemporaries (i.e. +Ignatius) considered her to be the immaculate Mother of God."
Luke,the physician, the writer of the gospel did not consider her the "immaculate Mother of God." She had to go through the purification rites just like every other mother in Israel because, Lev. 12: 2"..If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child...". Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;". There isn't any question that she was impure according to the law; not virtually impure, actually impure, no matter what the Church said after.
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.