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/
can't envision her as half Maori, either.
She was a Jew, probably with olive or dark skin. The middle east is not smack dab in the middle of Europe, you know. What you said sound biggoted.
Biggot
Mary was a Jew. She and Joseph were able to hide out in Egypt for a while. She was probably olive skinned or even dark skinned. Remember the Jews were enslaved in Egypt for hundreds of years and there had to be some intermingling then. She probably looked like a typical middle-eastern young lady. Why do white people want to picture all of the events in the bible, which take place in the middle east and North Africa and Israel , as having a bunch of white Europeans running around. That is the silliest thing I've ever heard of.
Descriptions of Blessed Mary describe her as fair looking with reddish hair
Descriptions from where? If it ain't in the bible, we have to go on logic. She looked Semetic like all the peoples around her. Dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin!
If and when you get to Heaven. You will be suprised how exotic how many of the heros and heriones in the Bible look. Please keep in mind that many of the events in the bible are taking place in the middle east and North Africa and Israel and these are exotic looking peoples. Not European!
Jut a another one of those finer points of the Bible, isn't it? I didn't make up the meaning. Nor did I choose the words. But sullambano sullamabnw means "to seize, take, to conceive, of lust, etc."
Now, we know that Elizabeth did indeed conceive in a natural carnal act with her husband, but we also know that Mary did not (there was no "seed" and no "husband: and no carnal relationship, or violation of her virginity). Unless you favor the Mormon theology.
So, it is an enigma why +Luke uses the same word, when we are certain that the two women became pregnant in very different and mutually exclusive ways, isn't it?
Opinionated, aren't you?
I never said they looked European. They also didn't look like a mixture of Caucasians and New Zealand natives. Have a problem with that?
The seed in Greek is sperma (sperma). Whose sperma are you hinting at?
Hence, and I hate to get graphic, the inclusion of the clitoris in G-d's design of women. It has no biological function, other than for the sake of pleasure. G-d meant for the husband and wife to give pleasure to each other to encourage us to want to procreate. I am not anti-Catholic. But I seem to sense a disdain or fear of sexual pleasure coming from some of them. There is no scripture saying that Mother Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her days. And if she slept with her husband Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus, it doesn't diminish her in any way.
The young lady who played Mary is olive skinned, dark-haired and dark eyed.
She looks perfectly acceptable to me. Now, I would have had a problem if they had chosen a blonde haired blue eyed girl to play Mary or an African-Amercan girl because that doesn't make sense.
Me too. My question was, however, why pick someone who "looks like" when there is a truckload of actresses from that area?
As it turns out, a Catholic filmmaker from Hollywood said it had to do with money and who-do-you-know. The usual. I am sure she is a good actress and pretty at that, but again why not pick someone genuine?
Back in the 1920's the filmmakers used to use white actors with painted faces to play Native and African Americans. Now isn't that as silly as a blue-eyed Jesus?
A Caucasian, European girl would definitely not be the right choice. I agree with you that Middle Eastern Jews of that time looked very different from Europeans. The races were a lot more distinct in those days than they are today.
Ditto.
But, you see, Mary did what we can't do – love God with all her heart and mind and soul. There was no other devotion in her life, but God.
Also for the sake of clarity...this truly is the first time ever in my entire life that I've encountered the teaching that Mary did not physically deliver Christ through her birth canal. I think it is for a lot of us.
If that makes us anathema, so be it.
But, I don't think God is like that with doctrine.
I also think Jesus was delivered naturally. The scriptures seem to indicate that, and the only way to get to a contrary view is by imposing an external criteria upon the scripture.
Guess that makes me anathema.
Luther and Calvin provided us with wiggle room in that sola scriptura clause. They told us to tell them where they were wrong. Now you might ask Kolo why the Orthodox reject the Nicene Creed as written or the infalibility of the Pope (which I believe has a curse attached to it as well). Does that make him nervous?
Αδελφος
"Also for the sake of clarity...this truly is the first time ever in my entire life that I've encountered the teaching that Mary did not physically deliver Christ through her birth canal. I think it is for a lot of us."
New for me too, Padre. I've never heard such a foolish thing. But that isn't what αειπαρθενος means or even implies. It means ever virgin in the sense that she never "knew" a man.
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.