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/
Yes, a lot of us are scratching our heads. Even several RCs whom I questioned hadn't heard this angle.
That is because to be called "quarterback" one has to do something once, while in order to be called "virgin" one has to not do something even once.
The concept, if not the actual reference is given us in Christ miraculously emerging through a closed door.
See post 152.
-A8
"Perpetual virginity" is very different from "intact, physical" virginity after natural childbirth which strikes many Christians as ludicrous.
-A8
I think a distinction is being made between virginity as absence of sexual relations with men -- let us call it social virginity -- and physically intact hymen, let us call is physiological virginity, which hypothetically speaking would have been lost in childbirth, were the childbirth to proceed without a miraculous involvement of God.
It is true that the distinction never occurred as important to the Early Church, but we live in a faithless age. Stars popping up in the sky at Christ's birth we believe, magi traveling through the desert dodging Herod we also believe, virginal conception we believe, resurrection from the dead we believe, walking on water we believe, but to believe that God could go through a piece of skin just strains imagination too much.
In other words, in those times the claim that someone remained a virgin perpetually was not intended to claim only that such a person never had sexual relations. It was also an implicit claim about their physical integrity. So, for example, in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus, it is said: "After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin". That's 431 AD.
And Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): "To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate."
-A8
I would say their "inferences" from scripture is a tad more stronger than total speculation from someone 1500 years later.
Thank you. So it is at least as old as St. Augustine. Here is your answer, Harley.
You keep showing no respect to Dr. Luther and I will have to refer you to the Westminster Confessional.
"Sola Scriptura is a dangerous superstition."
Not as dangerous as relying on expedient tradition interpreted by professionals with a position to protect.
"in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate"
That says nothing about perpetual virginity. All Augustine is saying is that the Holy Spirit came over Mary and at the time of Jesus' birth she was a virgin.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council (533 AD) does say that Mary was ever-virgin, i.e. perpetually virgin.
-A8
Are you suggesting she informed the whole world that +Joesph is not the father of the Child? Do you think she announcned that her Child is God Incarnate, conceived and born in a supernatural way?
She said no such thing because no one asked her. Everyone presumed the Child was +Joseph's and was no different than any other human child, including the way He was born, and therefore His Mother was considered "unclean" for 40 days, as any mother would be in the Jewish custom of the time (and in the Eastern Orthodox Church).
She knew the repercussions of such candidness.
"The Fifth Ecumenical Council (533 AD) does say that Mary was ever-virgin, i.e. perpetually virgin."
App. 540 years after His birth they come to that conclusion based on what, "oral tradition"? I think it is safer to take the witness of the writers of the New Testament at face value. At least then you can blame any error on the inspired writers rather than uninspired men hundreds of years after who were relying on unsubstantiated tradition.
She gave birth means she gave birth. Any understanding you add to that other than the normal meaning of those words would be the addition.
"She said no such thing because no one asked her"
Let's see, Joseph knew and was going to put her away until God intervened. Elizabeth knew, and Simeon and Anna knew since they knew the prophecy and were waiting for Him. Anna told everyone about Him. But it doesn't make any difference who knew what. The Law is clear that if a woman gives birth to a male child she is impure. Lev. 12:1, "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...". There is no evidence that His birth was any different than any other male child; the angelic announcements excepted.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this was not a normal child.
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.