'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/

[HarleyD]

Absolutely. There is a difference between a fleeting thought (and immediate repentance) and a willful follow-up (act) on that thought.

I wondered what was the view of homosexuality with the Orthodox. Now I know (perhaps).

But to a Protestant mindset, it shouldn't matter either way, should it? So what if they sinned? God already paid their bill, right?

Shouldn't matter??? Every sin we commit has consequences in our lives, some large, some small. King David was forgiven for his sin with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. But the repercussions from that sin followed him the rest of his life.

You can't be a Christian and still wish to live in sin. You should want to be cleansed from lust, not catering to it or saying "it's normal". (Imagine that from an Orthodox!) Excusing homosexuality is simply looking the other way.

[.30Carbine]

Amen, and thank you, hosepipe.

[.30Carbine]

Thank you very much!

[Quix]

Judson Cornwall's former pastor, a woman, was commissioned by God to preach when she was 17 years old. Her name was Fuschia Pickett. If you are called, you HAVE to go, whether you are a man or a woman. If you don't, you will be miserable until you decide to obey God. It all comes down to obedience, doesn't it?
= = = =

You must have it all wrong, Mary . . . we are to obey

!!!!AUTHORITY!!!! only when it comes from pontifically cloistered; edifice buttressed; traditions of men fossilized; doctrines of men rigidified; customs of men inculcated; worshipped of men flattered;

if the authority is 'only' God and His word, it can be ignored--I mean--St Paul only knows what he's talking about when the traditions of men decided so 400 years later; 600 years later; whenever the current winds of edicts came out.
/sar

Perhaps it has something to do with . . . oh, dear, Scripture . . . Scriptural truth . . .

neither Jew nor Greek; male nor female . . . in Christ.

Oh, My. Could God through Paul mean what He says about THAT!???

= = =

[run run run . . . OH BISHOP--those nasty Protesty's are doing it again! BISHOP, BISHOP, They are insisting that Scripture trumps pontifical edicts, customs, traditions and doctrines of men! Oh, horrors, Bishop, whatever shall we do???]

[Quix]

I think of the Salvation Army, Rescue Mission, Samaritan's Purse, Operation Blessing and a host of other Christian organizations that are constantly on the front lines with charity. How many Catholics actually tithe? We're expected to in our church and we give liberally to missions and to our Christian school. Missions is a big part of our church. Catholics don't have the corner on that market.
= = =

You are quite right, Mary.

I've heard of a significant number (though relatively few proportionally) Protestants living on a tithe and giving the rest to God. I've NEVER heard of a Roman believer doing that. Not sure it means anything but it's an interesting fact--especially when some choose to lambast us about caring for others. Sheesh.

[Quix]

Good points.

Thanks.

[Quix]

Good points.

Thanks.

[BTW, some hyperbole is just fun]

[Quix]

True, but a heterosexual or a homosexual who persistently takes each thought captive and refuses to "go there," even in their minds . . . imho, is not sinning.

Abstaining from thought sins and active sins is a discipline, certainly--evidently one that trains us to be overcomers.

I suppose one could SAY that overeaters, alcoholics, homosexuals, playboy studs, workaholics, netaholoics, . . . the list is endless . . . are all grossly sinning just to notice food, a beer ad, a beefy guy, a shapely gal, work to do, websites to scan, . . .

but I don't think God sees it that way.

Feeding in our mind and rumminating on possibilities with such sin options is another matter.

[Quix]

... you have no clue what it is.
= = =

I disagree. I think he does.

It is, however, likely that he has a different construction on that reality than some others on this thread.

[Quix]

Apostles would make regular use of it when quoting the Tanakh for their Greek audience, but since they also made their own translations from the Hebrew text, the idea that the LXX was a sacred translation to them, as good or better than the original Hebrew, doesn't hold water.

= = =

Oh, dear, more sensible truth.

[Quix]

Luther shook the dust off of his feet from immmoral Rome. Rome has never forgiven the challenge to their power.
= = = =

BINGO.

And outrage at anyone who'd usurp POWER is a key factor in LOTS of religious junk on all sides. And the older and more entrenched, formalized, rigidified, etc. the power STRUCTURES, the worse and more adept at imposing themselves between individuals and God.

Then God is outraged.

[Quix]

In other words, "hey, you're going to sin. Don't beat yourself up over it. Rather, get back up, put your trust in the grace of Christ to keep you from sinning further and move on.

That is Christianity. Not perfect people, but a perfect Savior.
= = =

AMEN.

THX

[Quix]

Unless God is a moron or thinks we are.. Jesus, as always, was making a point.. and the point was NOT about Peter..

Indeed, the point was why Peter was blessed. Jesus said "Blessed art thou ... for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
God is the Rock, hence the metaphor/nickname for Peter - the first to receive that direct revelation, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

= = = =

INDEED.

Thanks tons for your many blessings toward me by your many labors hereon and your faithful prayers and encouragements.

[Quix]

In fact, Luther was compelled by the Holy Spirit to leave and preach God's word.
= = =

Indeed, though it didn't mean he was instantly perfected or ever perfected in this life therefrom. He did grow and mature more in The Lord.

[Quix]

.. maybe its just the organization I am offended at..

Perhaps that is why you refer to all religious organizations as "clubs?"
= = =

I'm rather often inclined to agree with hosepipe on that score. At least too many congregations function as such vs as living Biblical parts of HIS LIVING BODY OBEDIENT TO HIM AND HIS WORD IN ALL THEIR DEALINGS WITH ONE ANOTHER and the world.

Therefore, too often, there's insufficient evidence for

the world to know they are Christians by their love.

[Quix]

And here we have an irreconcilable difference because I aver that if anyone - anyone - ever was good enough ("works") to get into heaven then Christ died for nothing.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Gal 2:21

= = = =

Including Mary; whom Christ thoughtfully shuffled off to John for care.

[Quix]

And only one body of Christ.
I prefer to call the various confessions and churches "assemblies." Of course, every time we get together and talk about Christ on the forum, that too is an assembly.


Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Matt 18:18-20

= = = =

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Quix]

The Vatican's position on homosexuality is that until the act is commited then it is not sinful. This contradicts the scriptures which, as you seemingly agree, is sinful before being acted upon.
= = = =

Picky picky!

There you go again, trying to hold the Vatican to the Scriptural standard! Don't you know the edifice's own standard trumps Scripture . . . Why, it's said so abundantly on this thread--Scripture is suspect until the good ole boy's club sanctions the interpretation!

sar/

LOL

[Quix]

But then, that's the point: It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same.
= = =

Trying to be sensible and logical again, are you! And on a religion forum thread! Nice miracle that you seem to work above average.

[Blogger]

Luther was like a newborn baby coming out of the womb. He still had the products of what he came through on him. He still retained a bit of the Roman service. But on the essentials, he "got it".