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/
If you say so, FK, useful maybe (for those who may doubt), but necessarily — definitely not.
God gave us life as well. We don't call it 'free gift (of life).' God gives us faith; we don't call it 'free gift (of faith).' Life an faith are something we actually have, grace is a pardon (unwarranted mercy) that we benefit from but don't have. It's not a state like freedom (which we don't call 'free gift' but an 'inalienable right').
Calling an engagement ring a 'gift' is also one of those 'oxymorons' because that act comes with conditional expectations. It's a 'deposit' a 'claim.' For some reason, man gives it to the woman and not the other way around, and women are not complaining. :)
A gift of a diamond ring would be a gift only if it were given to someone for no reason whatsoever. An engagement ring is a 'promissory item' usually but not always without a legal contract. It is given because someone wants something in return for it. It is therefore not a gift.
I suppose if you could explain:
The New International Version of the bible. Yep I'll take that translation on google over the original Hebrew or Greek anytime! All those scholars what were they thinking?
NIV, better than the Dead Sea scrolls even!
hah and you folks say you don't worship bibles...
The question was more akin to Jesus=Word Incarnate=Scripture=Jesus?
My answer is no.
I was asking/replying to another poster, back a ways.
thanks for your reply.
Well, what translation is the best? I suppose a number of Orthodox who can’t read Greek would like to know. And, if none of them are any good, why hasn’t the Orthodox developed one? I realize the printing press was just invented only 600 years ago but I would think that by now it would have been done.
The fact of the matter, after some research, the Orthodox puts no more emphasis on the word of God than any other writings. See Holy Scripture In The Orthodox Church Your posts are evident of the philosophical views the Orthodox have with the word of God. It a way it would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad. The Orthodox will defend writings such as the deutercanoncials and then turn around and say they based everything on tradition, and that the Bible, in essence, is junk. That, of course raises the question how do you know what you are reading is the scriptures since (I’m sure) you haven’t personally examined the Byzantine text. This is a very sad commentary on a Church that was started by fathers that held the scriptures in high regards-so much so they declared them inspired. But, this has all been conveniently forgotten by the Orthodox.
Translations may vary but people can examine the original writings, text, and tenses as I’ve stated on another post. I don’t believe you answered that. Certainly the author of my article seems to know what the correct text was. To be sure there are some passages that are confusing and conflict but for the most part those rectify themselves in time with study and, as I have recently learned, the right soteriology. But I came to the conclusion on day 1 of my Christian life that if a person can’t believe the entire word of God, then they can’t believe any of it. With study and time a person can know what is written and translations don't matter because God will help a person know the truth. I'm evident of that.
I will also add that denying the viability of the word of God is, in my opinion, one of the worst offenses a person can do. There are biblical reasons for this view. I won’t say anything more than that.
You won't find any of us building shrines or venerating before a book.
Just thought I'd help you with your confusion. You're welcome.
You don't have a Bible yet? I'm aghast! How do you know what scripture to quote; if it's accurate or not?
No you just call a book written by men God. No wonder protestants frown on the Eucharist; they think they've got God sitting on their bookshelf.
We don't have an english translation we have a slew of greek and slavic Bibles...
BTW: the printing press was invented WHEN again?
Yet Christians were saved without ever reading scripture (or even being able to read) LONG before a bunch of angry west europeons started worshipping printed texts...
t'wasn't mine, Harley.
Wow, you've certainly led an interesting life. I may have even heard you sing. We honeymooned on waikiki beach in 1988. I wish I had known about the chess pavilion. Perhaps it was just as well though, my bride would have killed me. :)
As his guru I keep telling him : open your K/Q pawns, take COMMAND of the center. CARPE DEUM, sieze the day, get in the enemy's face, ...
Absolutely. When I played all the time in college, I instituted a patsy development program. But even when it was time to throw a game, I had to have my fun. Many times I would open h3 just to watch them squirm to figure out my diabolical plan, instead of noticing the insult. LOL! Those were the days.
Thanks for your reply.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It looks like men are more willing to trust what other men reveal to them than to trust in the Lord. God says that his Word is truth, wisdom and understanding. That it is written down for men to follow seems to be a stumbling block for some.
The only woman that the Arabs would not try to deceive was Golda Meir because she commanded the power to kick their collective a$$es.
= = = =
Pretty good points, to me.
Yeah, the guy I play e-chess with is a masochist. Walter, the german, would beat him every time but let him win 1 in 20 games. Howard has a NEED to be beaten, deep seated guilt complex combined with shepherd archetype. He has this idea that you can go to WAR(in chess) and not lose a single man. Typical naive democrat. I should feel guilty whacking him 9 out of 10 games but true FRers should ALWAYS whack pelosi demonrats wherever they may be found.
The one guy who could STOMP me every time was a navy cryptographer, supremely logical guy who spent 6 months learning chess. Yes, your bride would have been very unhappy w/you if you'd found CHESS CENTRAL on waikiki beach. It's almost like a narcotic, the regulars there play all day until after sunset, having nothing much else to do.
There was this young black kid, always played a "right brain" game(child artist)whereas chess is a "left brain" game(computer engineer), like sudoku. Blacks are generally right-brain strong but left-brain weak, like the lobster with one big claw, one little claw. Thus he was exercising his left brain/little claw by playing chess.
It was pathetic to watch, he'd consistently lose and finally I told him about left brains vs right brains and how to focus his mechanical-organic "computer". But it was an uphill struggle for him. Same with almost all blacks, the enemy isn't whitey/houlis, it's that weak LEFT brain...
Not to be racist(there were GOOD black players there too)but one could see the white/black difference. It comes down to mechanical left brain abilities. Whites(and japanese) tinker with cars, computers, robots, THINGS in high school; blacks play basketball. Same thing w/the native hawaiians.
Ah well, we architects are both artists AND engineers, natural chess players; but we play with BIGGER THINGS than chess men on an 8x8 board. What's your profession?
No you just call a book written by men God. No wonder protestants frown on the Eucharist; they think they've got God sitting on their bookshelf.
= = = =
I find that an utterly silly notion devoid of any shred of correlation or congruence with any reality as I've known or experienced reality the last 60 years.
Fascinating.
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.