'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/

[Quix]

Or, as Ross Perot's mother said to him . . .

Ya know, Ross, a little of you goes a long ways.

Quite a statement from a MOTHER!

Alex, we fiercely disagree on a number of things--some of them important.

But I've always respected your courage of your convictions. Nothing luke-warm about you and God seems to rank that a priority and so do I. Congrats.

[P-Marlowe]

Very astute observations Gamecock! Clearly any claim that there is no similarity between the odd doctrines of the LDS and the odd doctrines of the Catholic Church breaks down when the facts are shown in clear light.

I find it odd that several Catholics have accused you of attempting to start a "flame war" by posting those comparisons, yet none of them have bothered to attempt any specific refutations of the comparisions. In that sense it seems they are the ones attempting to start a flame war by accusing you of attempting to start a flame war.

There's no need to play along. The comparisions are valid and speak for themselves. Thanks for posting them.

BTW you left out question 11:

11. Which of the following has a method whereby people on earth can effectuate the entrance into heaven by those who are currently dead?

A. Roman Catholicism (prayers and pennance)
B. Mormonism (baptism for the dead)
C. A and B

I'm sure there are more.

Thanks.

[Gamecock]

Thanks for your kind words and contribution!

I think this whole concept would be worthy of a thread of it's own.

[Quix]

I think this whole concept would be worthy of a thread of it's own.

INDEED

Let er rip!

[timer]

The anecdotal story is told of how Peter "got out of dodge city on the fastest horse he could find"(Rome)when Nero was persecuting the christians as being the arsonists behind the fires that swept thru the city. He was going to save his OWN skin at least.

Then the angel(or his conscience)stopped him on the road, and he went back to face the music, and to be crucified upside down. Recently the archeologists have discovered his skeleton under the Saint Peter's Basilica, or so some believe. Interesting guy, mercurial temperment, loud mouth one minute, denying Jesus thrice the next.

Joke : there was a HOLE in the fence between heaven and hell. Bad guys kept getting thru, running around and causing mischief. Saint Pete had to go all over, grab them and throw them back over the fence. Finally in exasperation he yells at satan : SATAN, if you don't fix this HOLE in the fence I'm going to SUE. Satan's reply : Have you got a lawyer?

Anyway, the laying of the cornerstone of the future temple was announced in the israeli press this last year or so. A highly symbolic event, awaiting the earthquake that will bring down the Al Aqsa mosque.

So, go look at how the events in the middle east are unfolding vs the book of revelation. The worldwide hatred of Israel thus justifying the complete destruction of the entire earth and all its peoples. If you want to, I can tell you in a private post how the 1-2 punch happens...

[the OlLine Rebel]

Oh good God. Is this thread ever going to end? Or at least, start a new thread for your splinter discussions?!?

[Quix]

Naw, we like it this way.

[Forest Keeper]

[Kolo to Quix:] My question had to do with your apparent agreement with FK's assertion that the medieval Latin practice of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity somehow affected the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Since Orthodoxy never did that, how does one explain virtually the same theology and liturgical practice in Orthodoxy as one sees in the Roman Church. Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?

I don't really remember this being my point, although my words may have implied it. What I remember focusing on was the idea that keeping scriptures away from the laity was evidence that a hierarchy believed that a "free" reading of the scriptures would lead to theology not in concert with that of the hierarchy. I was contrasting that to our position, which has always been to greatly encourage all people to read as much scripture as they can. Simple teaching can take care of questions, apparent Biblical contradictions, etc.

I realize that this does not make your point go away. LOL! So, perhaps in this light the RCs have a point that the Orthodox did not face the same "market competition" that they faced. (I don't know, I've just seen that said.) Anyway, if that is true, then Orthodoxy simply wouldn't qualify for the comparison. If it's true that the vast majority of Orthodox of that time were never even exposed to other interpretations, then the hierarchy could be confident of the laity taking an Orthodox interpretation.

So, my supposition was that the RCC of the time feared that, with Protestantism out there, people reading the Bible on their own would come to Protestant conclusions. The answer was apparently that the hierarchy greatly discouraged the reading of scripture. That says a lot to me because it implies a defenseless scripture. I, of course, hold the opposite view that scripture is invincible. :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As God wills. 8~)

[Quix]

Now Dr E

your position has to be

God has willED it.

LOL.
later

[annalex]

none of them have bothered to attempt any specific refutations of the comparisions

I cannot comment on the LDS but I did respond to the Catholic side point by point in 9505. More questions, just ask.

11 is correect as long as it is understood that prayers and other oblations for the dead work only for souls in Purgatory, already headed to heaven.

[kawaii]

Did you or did you not insinuate that 282 words of St Pauls scripture is 'culturual and not applicable'? (Ones which St Paul explicitly states are the commandments of God btw)

Christians are of the mind that Holy Scripture is inspired by God; not some sort of subjective encyclopedia.

[1000 silverlings]

Until you can produce the scripture in which you claim that God commanded the Israelites to venerate the oxen in the temple and prove that it exists, and that you did not just make it up, I can only conclude by your own words and actions that you have proven to all here your true character. The Lord says we are not to give ear to your utterances.

[annalex]

the RCC of the time feared that, with Protestantism out there, people reading the Bible on their own would come to Protestant conclusions.

There are, and were, two concerns. One is that the translation is incomplete or inaccurate. This is plaguing the Protestant communities to this day. Sadly, our own NAB is just as bad as King James, although not nearly as horrid as some "dynamic" translations.

The other is that no one reads the Bible on his own. Everyone brings in his notions of right and wrong, preferences, social instincts, etc. The Reformers, for example, brought in their democratic instincts and anticlerical disposition, very remote from the Apostolic age. We see the same silliness today when people think that clerical vestments are funny.

Douay Rheims actually preceded King James. The Church never prevented the laity from studying the scripture, but it did not like deception. We still don't.

[P-Marlowe]

11 is correect as long as it is understood that prayers and other oblations for the dead work only for souls in Purgatory, already headed to heaven.

Well baptism for the dead in LDS theology only works for those who are already headed for heaven as well. They are baptized by proxy so that they can be considered worthy for entrance into the celestial kingdom.

So the comparison is quite apropos.

Carry on.

[kawaii]

I've already shown you where it says in 282 words that women should cover their heads while praying and you've dismissed Holy Scripture as 'a cultural thing not applicable today'.

Ignoring 282 words of the New Testament and then trying to demand scriptural evidence of anything else seems hypocritical.

[annalex]

OK. Here is one supersition you guys share with Islam: Sola Scriptura.

[Quix]

but it did not like deception. We still don't.
++ ++

Except, of course, when it's magestierically generated or sanctioned deception.

[P-Marlowe]

OK. Here is one supersition you guys share with Islam: Sola Scriptura.

No, the Muslims discount if not reject inspired scripture and replace it with non-biblical and non-scriptural writings which contradict the clear teaching of scripture. The Muslims, catholics and mormons all accept non-biblical texts and traditions to support their distinctive and non-scriptural practices and beliefs.

Try again.

[Quix]

OK. Here is one supersition you guys share with Islam: Sola Scriptura.
= = =

Uhhhhhhhh, no.

Last I heard, we have VERY DIFFERENT "Scriptures."

But, as I understand it, they do share a very Romanesque doctrine . . .

that the serfs can't understand the scriptures apart from the magesterical explaining them. So don't go trying to practice them without direct magesterical direction.

Thankfully, the Roman magesterical has not resorted to suicide bombing the "Protesty apostates" . . . yet