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

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

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."

"What makes their words any more true than the Quran of the Bhagavad Gita, or the Adi Granth??? After all, if their words were not directly inspired and controlled by God then we have a work of human beings on our hands."

I doubt I ever said that the works of scripture were not directly inspired by the HS, B. If they weren't, we'd have a particularly sketchy history book on our hands.

"If your entire faith is based upon only what men have said (be they in the Scripture or throughout the ages as churchmen), how can you have the least bit confidence that God is even in it???? Experientialism? Hindus have that? Faith??? Muslims have that. What makes your faith any different from any other man-made religion if you believe that Scripture is merely man's word and not man's words as directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?"

If my Faith were based solely on what other men said, or if it were based solely on what other men wrote in scripture and none of that was inspired by the HS, then I suppose I would likely worship the old gods of Greece or Ireland. B, I never said the HS had nothing to do with the scriptures. Indeed, it seems evident to me that The Church always has believed, especially since say the 4th century, that what we have generally as the agreed upon and established canon of scripture is the product of men who had been graced with a level of "gnosis" (in the good sense)rather dramatically higher than that of the subsequent Fathers let alone the average Niko on the streets of Corinth. In them, the indwelling of the HS was built upon the indwelling of the HS until they were able to perceive, through a clearer eye of the soul than you or I or the Fathers, the uncreated energies of God and this is knowledge, and at the same time a sort of "unknowledge", or "knowledge transcending", of The Truth of God.

+Matthew, +Mark, +Luke, +John, +Paul +James, +Jude and +Peter all experienced in one way or the other, the uncreated Light which is an energy of God and were illuminated by it. All but +Paul had actual physical contact with Christ in the flesh. They knew as best as any man could, how to fulfill their own created purpose and bring others to that understanding. But they were men who needed the destruction of our bondage to death as much as the next fellow. They could no more come into a union with the Divine Essence than any of the rest of us. They were not God. And although they arrived at perhaps the highest level of theosis (and here I will add, without intending to create a side discussion, except for the Theotokos)of any writers of holy and inspired works, they neither knew all there was to know about God nor, in my opinion, did they perfectly express all there is to know about God. For example, it is clear from history that the scriptural descriptions of God did not, as a practical matter, perfectly explain the Most Holy Trinity. That was left to The Church to explain in a way that you and I know "understand". The divinity of Christ, His actual nature, was a source of centuries of controversy and error sincerely held by Arians and Nestorians. The resolution of those controversies and errors, all arising from the very words of scripture, was left to The Church. Now today you and I can look at scripture and Nestorianism or Arianism and quickly say that those beliefs are heretical and point to scripture to prove it. But we have the benefit of 1700 years of Church teaching that people in the year 400 didn't, though they did have the same scriptures we do. You know, I find it fascinating to contemplate a scene, in the year 400, when some bishop/missionary, arrives in a Teutonic, Odin worshipping village, preaches the NT, baptizes the whole place...and everyone there spends the next three or four generations as sincerely faithful Arians.

It is not at all necessary for my Faith to believe that the writers of scripture were in possession of a perfect knowledge of God or that their words are so clear and precise that the NT, for example, is the perfect expression of all of man's knowledge of God in and of itself. Like I said earlier, there is knowledge, natural knowledge if you will, and then there is the spiritual knowledge which comes from God's grace by the indwelling of the HS and which actually transcends natural knowledge and is perceived and understood as best it can be not by the mind, but by the eye of the soul which has been cleared.

"If we are illumined by divine power, and fix our eyes on the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through the image are let up to the indescribably beauty of its source, it is because we have been inseparably joined to the Spirit of knowledge. He gives those who love the vision of truth the power which enables them to see the image, and this power is Himself. He does not reveal it to them from outside sources, but leads them to knowledge personally. `No one knows the Father except the Son.'" +Basil the Great

Man has no power to change God's plan.

Than you must believe that man's rebellion agianst God is not really a "rebellion," but something God determined must happen. It was then God's decision, right?

However, I'm not exactly sure how this relates to whether God demanded a price

A price for what? What did man do that God didn't want or allow him to do? Did man's rebellion change anything God did not choregraph from before all ages? Where is the crime?

This is where Protestant logic seems to break down. You speak of 'offense' and 'price' needed to 'redeem' man for something man had no power or ability to change.

It's like asking that you to pay a penalty for getting sick.

And what was God supposedly so 'angry' about? He didn't know that we would turn out to be a rotten bunch? Why was He 'offended?'

[Is it MORE specific to say that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ,the incarnate 2d Person of the Godhead, OR is it more specific to say that Mary gave birth to God?]

Mary was the virgin God used to conceive by the Holy Spirt the incarnate God in the flesh, Jesus of Nazareth who alone was crucified for our sins,died and rose again the third day so that those who believe and confess Jesus as the Christ of God may be saved by grace throught faith without works according to God's Word, the Holy Scriptures.
Catholism abandoned the Christ only salvation gospel some centuries ago and is now reprobate concerning the Christian faith and has overun by mysticism and heresies, as the Holy Bible warned against.
In the book of Galations chapter one, God warns Christians concerning the Word of God and His Christ;
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

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.