Virtual Ministry Blog

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Nativity Movie

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
December 4, 2006
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 Catechism of the Catholic Church at no. 499 teaches "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man."

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."

Labels: ,

7 Comments:

  • Wow Dan, this is a remarkable article! I still intend to go to see this movie, but it's important to understand the aspects of the film that do not seem to be supported by Church teachings on Mary. What I find most enlightening here is the teaching in the Catechism and from the Fathers of the Church which indicates that Mary had experienced a miraculous birth which did not violate her virginity. This means that she would not have experienced the pain of a regular birth experienced by all woman. I find this most interesting as I had long thought that Mary could have experienced this based on my personal reflections on Genesis, where we read that the pain of childbirth seemed to be a direct consequence of Eve's disobedience to God: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children."Gen. 3, 16. (New American Bible). Since the Church teaches that Mary was born without the hereditary stain of original sin, I had simply concluded in my heart the possibility that Mary, therefore, would not have borne the pain associated with childbirth when Jesus was born.

    For some time, I had not given much further thought to my reflection on this until I read Maria Valtorta's Poem of a Man God, which described Mary giving birth in a miraculous way (as I recall, a powerful light envelops Mary and when the light subsides, the child Jesus is in her arms). The information provided in the article below has reinforced this concept in my understanding. At a simple level, I ask myself: if God would cause Mary to conceive Jesus miraculously, why could He not also cause her to give birth to Jesus miraculously?

    I very much appreciate the information included below as I was unaware of the depth of the Church's teaching in this regard.
    I wonder why, as Catholics, this teaching on Mary is not commonly presented or discussed...

    This will make for some interesting conversation among the brothers tomorrow morning at breakfast!

    God Bless!

    By Guy, at December 07, 2006 2:08 PM  

  • It is important to understand all that Holy Mother Church teaches and Guy is quite correct on the teachings related to our Blessed Mother.

    As you know the level of knowledge the average parishioner possesses is very low and there doesn't seem to be any willingness or vehicle (save for self motivation) to learn the valuable wisdom of the Church. While studying for the Deaconate the condition was well recognised and I suggested to the attending clergy that Catechesis could be done from the pulpit on during Sunday Mass otherwise the situation will only worsen.

    It has been my experience that a small trigger might ignite a huge fireball and demand one to seek more information. In my own case it was in fact the Poem of the Man God that triggered an insatiable appetite for Church teaching and as more information was learned the appetite only got larger. The more I learned the more I realise(d) how ignorant I Am (deliberate change of tense)

    I therefore am forced to wonder if this movie could have the same effect on many catholic people. I plan to see it.

    By Marty Tate, at December 11, 2006 4:14 PM  

  • I am looking forward to seeing the movie with its imperfections. Hey a lot like me in that regard and I'm sure better than much of the crap that is out there.

    By Jack Egan, at December 14, 2006 11:13 AM  

  • Thanks Marty! Now, after all that interesting reflection comes the scripture in today's 1st reading from the book of Revelation:

    ``Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.``NJB Revelation 12, 1

    As I understand the Church teachings, this passage also refers to Mary and would appear to contradict the Traditional teaching we have been discussing. Do you have any information in regards to this passage? I had only remembered this after I saw it this morning in the Mass readings...during my reflections, I had recalled this passage but I could not remember where I read it. I suspect that there may be a deeper explanation on this than I am not aware of....

    Look forward to your response!

    By Guy, at December 14, 2006 11:15 AM  

  • Well funny…again I was reading the Lamb’s Supper and Dr Scott Hahn addresses this very point. He suggests that if the male child is Christ then the Woman is our Blessed Mother, this point goes hand in glove, if A then B. He further states “the woman” stands for more …she is “daughter Zion” and she is also the Church besieged by Satan yet preserved in safety. This interpretation was held by the early Church fathers.

    As far as the physical pain is concerned…well we know from many private relations that our Blessed Mother is weeping because of the sins of Her children….but also because these sins anger the Father…but most importantly because it places Her children at risk of eternal damnation which has a two fold repercussion….one her children are gone, forever, two it upsets Her Son and his mission is “less successful” (poor choice of words but all I have time for )and she loves correctly, that is unconditionally.

    Since Mother Mary became the mother of all humankind at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:25-27) She now suffers for the loss of her children. Make no mistake, the battle of Revelation is going on right now, globally as never before, but it started when Christ died on the cross.

    Guy is right that may protestants use the church teaching that Mary did not suffer labour pains to refute the interpretation that Mary is “the Woman” of revelation. Oh how lucky we as Catholics are to have 2000 years of tradition and learning to nourish us. We are indeed very blessed.

    By Marty Tate, at December 14, 2006 11:17 AM  

  • Thanks Marty...interesting comments about Mary's current suffering as being the deeper explanation behind this Scripture passage. This idea had in fact come to my mind when I reflected on this passage, but I wasn't sure if it was plausible...

    I'm not sure about your last sentence...I didn't indicate anything in my text about how the Protestants interpret the Church teaching. However, at breakfast I stated that I suspected the Church may not be talking about this teaching in a regular manner in order be to prevent any obstacles in ongoing ecumenical talks with the Protestant brothers and sisters.

    By Guy, at December 14, 2006 11:19 AM  

  • I am not that smart. The idea comes from the bottom of page 78 of the Lamb's Supper. Dr. Hahn uses the term "Other Scholars" which I interpreted as protestants (as I have heard this in other academic discussions) because every Catholic theologian I have heard agrees the woman is Mary.

    The Bias is mine and was intended to be mine. As I read the text again I can see how this staement might be attributed to Guy...this was unintended.

    By Marty Tate, at December 14, 2006 11:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home