'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[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/

[Kolokotronis]

"The Greeks, before some became christians, had no idea of anything HOLY, none.. Meaning they no idea of what and who the real God was, wanted for mankind, or demanded that they perform..."

Oh that's just nonsense, HP. Greek mythology and philosophy are full of "sporoi" of the One God. So is Hinduism, Buddhism and ancient Egyptian religion.

[Kolokotronis]

Hey, HP, Happy Birthday! Kronia Pola!

[hosepipe]

[ Everyone, or so it seems, boasts of some divinity working inside of them. I feel that sometimes, but I have no clue what it is. I feel that somehow I am gently ushered back into repentance and self-denial, but like a person in a dream I "know" who I am thinking of but really don't have a label or a picture that comes with it. ]

Very honest post.. thanks..
I see somewhat you're situation.. probably..
Keep in mind that not all have your experience..

Some do have a relationship with the Holy Spirit..
What you said reminds me of my own experience in the past..

WIll share this with you...
I got all upset with the Holy Spirit one time..
Really upset.. and challenged him to get real with me..

Well nothing happened for the longest time but I was serious..
Eventually I heard (from within me)
"I will be as real with YOU as YOU are with ME"..
Thats all.. just that.. but I did hear/understand that..
Along with this "message" came remembrance of some times where I was not being real with my prayers.. Embarassing..

The bottom line is since then as "REAL" as I am with the Holy Spirit(answerer of prayer) the Holy Spirit is real with me.. ALWAYS.. Haven't "seen him" probably would scare me spitless probably.. BUT my prayers ARE answered, ALWAYS..

Needless to say I am careful with what I pray..
maybe that message was just to me for me..

But HECK an old heart to heart with the Holy Spirit couldn't hurt you a bit...
He is a pretty cool guy..
Know what I mean.. that is if you are serious.. d;-)~'.'.'

[hosepipe]

[ I would have said that everyone has SOME idea of what holiness is ]

Not really.. holiness just means "clean" or not poluted..
Read Psalm 19...

[Quix]

Oh what to wear?

= = = =

Oh, I suppose the truly truest most absolutely truly righteous could wear

what Adam started out wearing . . .

and claim that since Jesus clothed us in His Righteousness, that's all the clothes we need???

Now I'm getting as silly as folks who lean on the arm of bureaucratic flesh. Oh, Dear!

[P-Marlowe]

Oh what to wear? = = = = Oh, I suppose the truly truest most absolutely truly righteous could wear what Adam started out wearing . . .

There's a nudist camp by my house.

Maybe I should start a Bible study.

[Kolokotronis]

"This thread is turning into another Neverending Story thread!"

Yes it is...but once again its Holy Orthodoxy and the Latins shoulder to shoulder for The Church and The Ancient Faith! I DO like that! :)

[hosepipe]

[ Oh that's just nonsense, HP. Greek mythology and philosophy are full of "sporoi" of the One God. So is Hinduism, Buddhism and ancient Egyptian religion. ]

You're wrong..
The Hebrew God does not allow you're input on how to relate to him..
He tells you how to do it.. else you're worshipping a mental god.. a manufactured specter or illusion..

Thats why... "You MUST be born again" -Jesus..
Therefore its NOT what you believe... its whom you ARE..

[Quix]

You become popes when you interpret the scripture personally but claim it to be the universally correct interpretation.
= = = =

Uhhhhh, no.

Not by a long shot.

1. We did not/do not wage intense political fights and intrigues--some waged over centuries--manipulating, consolidating, coercing ever greater levels and degrees of political power and calling it Godly.

2. We particularly do not go out with masses of armed troops to take more territory and power unto ourselves.

3. We do not build stacks of castles and layers of bureaucracy on top of toothpick shreds of ASSUMPTION, INFERENCE AND EXTRAPOLATION and pretend that's THE ABSOLUTE HOLY WRIT FROM MT SINAI.

4. We do not claim infallibility.

5. We do not fabricate layers and whole schemas of fantastical magical dogma and pretended history for Mary on top of negligible evidence and considerable evidence to the contrary--all essentially for monitary and political gain.

6. We do not parade around in pontifical splendor facilitating vain glory and idolatrous worship on the part of those bowing and scraping for the chance to kiss our ring.

7. We do not interpose ourselves between God and man and facilitate others doing so in our name.

8. We do not claim that our particular organizational group is the exclusive protectrate and exclusively mandated host to God's only righteous and correct organizational expression on earth.

9. We do not demand that all Christendom conform to our edicts or face damnation or near it.

10. We do not pretend to be the latest of a long line of nonsensically, nonBiblically appointed successors to a pebble of a Christian leader more exhorted than crowned by Christ.

. . .

. . .

The list could go on and on.

We are NOT remotely papal. And many of us would find the assertion extremely insulting and scandalous to imagine such a thing.

But I can appreciate what a convenient little out it seemed like at the time to ignore all such facts above and claim otherwise.

[wmfights]

Please don't post to me.

[Quix]

vaguely gnostic idea of the invisible Church,
= = = =

I think this has been soundly refuted repeatedly.

Shall we bring up the old assertions about satanic influence over the Holy See? As far as I can tell, one has about as much validity as the other. Actually, the gnostic assault may have a lot less from some perspectives.

[Quix]

Given that God DESCRIBES HIMSELF otherwise, I'll stick with

GOD'S PERSPECTIVE ON HIMSELF

instead of the assertions of a fossilized bureaucracy.

[blue-duncan]

"Stop the presses. So it was not the Father demanding sacrifice after all?"

I don't know what you mean by that statement. Sin demands a sacrifice; love provided it in Jesus. As far as believers are concerned Jesus said, (Jhn 16:33) These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." Paul said, (Phl 1:29) "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;" Martyrdom is part of the plan.

"Then we have your folk who (1) arrogate sainthood to themselves (2) insist on doing nothing to attain holiness (3) riducule the true saints who gave you Christianity as a bunch of dead people. So much for your witness."

We don't "arrogate" sainthood, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, Jude and John all call all believers saints. What's the problem?

We can't do anything to "attain" holiness. God did that for us in Christ, (Col 1:22) "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:" He tells us to become what we already are in Jesus, but that is not "attaining" but living out what we already are.

I haven't seen anyone here ridiculing God or the Apostles. What I have seen is a realistic portrayal, according to the scriptures, of the men Jesus called to be with Him.

[Quix]

Not surprised.

But I don't.

History records, for example, that God has always had a Pentecostal cluster of belivers here and there through thick and thin--with signs following.

I'll take Holy Spirit's blessing on disconnected groups affirmed and raised up BY HIM over the assertions and pontifical blessings of any bureaucracy any where, any time.

[Quix]

When I show up on a Protestant thread telling them what their posture means and what is wrong with their faith, remind me.
= = =

UHHHH . . . . even though that begs for some obvious answers . . . I'll restrain myself and pass on by . . . prayerfully . . . sitting in my grandma's Laz-Y-Boy.

[blue-duncan]

"We are not amused."

Oh my, you have been seduced by the dark side. Where did you go wrong, where oh where did you go wrong. Repent for the Day of the Lord is at hand!!

[hosepipe]

[ Hey, HP, Happy Birthday! ]

Thanks.. New Drivers license day..

[Quix]

The New Testament was written by individual apostles, and their disciples, Catholic clergy all.
= = =

Uhhhh, no.

The Roman bureaucracy took root, what, 300-400 years post Peter.

The whole Peter thing is more than a little arguable.

Calling anyone penning Scripture Catholic in anything remotely close to the Roman sense strikes more than a few of us as gross usurpation and cheekiness.