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/
Please take a second look and judge for yourself. Let's take some examples, starting with the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).
Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
The good professor has a problem with language. Lev. 17:11 does NOT state that the ONLY way to atone for sin is through blood. In his rush to condemn the Deuterocanonicals because HE KNOWS they are not Scriptures, he makes a very basic mistake, assuming that Lev. 17 is an absolute rule.
But Sirach teaches that honouring parents and giving alms atones for sin. Sirach teaches that a person can be justified by another method apart from substitutionary sacrifice.
So does 1 Timothy 2! Or is this also not part of Sacred Scriptures???
Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:15
For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin.
Jeez! Apparently, the professor isn't able to understand that the passage is speaking about GOD'S WISDOM - refering to the Son of God, in Christian language... The Church Fathers LOVED Wisdom because they saw within this book references to the Logos before the Incarnation...Or does the professor believe that the Logos, the Wisdom of God, was born with original sin? Perhaps you should actually read what some of these guys write before you post them, BD...
Sirach 12:4-7 advices,Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him... give unto the good, and help not the sinner.”
Again, the professor hasn't read the Psalms - many of them speak in the exact same way...
There are also historical errors in the apocrypha. For example, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Perhaps Tobit is a historical novel, rather than a literal historical book, much like Esther. Thus, if so, they are not "errors". It is meant to teach God's people about God. If the author decides to use this as a background for his teaching, it is still inspired by God.
Unfortunately, the doctor has already predetermined that the Deuterocanonicals are not Scripture, and then sets out to "prove it". Normally, if the doctor remembers anything from school, one is to be open minded and go where the evidence points, not steer it in the direction of your pet project. His work is not worthy of being read if I have so easily refuted it - and I am not even a doctor...
Regards
Keep following the Jews and their decisions - to include their denial of Jesus of Nazareth being God in the flesh. I believe 1 John writes that such people are the anti-christ. So if you have decided to follow the Jewish decisions at Jamnia, you have just eliminated the Gospels as Sacred Scriptures. By your own mouth you are condemned.
And then you throw the "anti-semeticism" charge on us because we don't follow the Jewish decision?
Next, you'll be calling Jesus "anti-semetic" because of His "Woe to the Pharisees" speech...
What theology? I suppose you will soon be eliminating Numbers and Genesis for the very same reasons. And in Leviticus, I find a lot of "famous quotes". Let's be honest. You have eliminated the Deuterocanonicals because Protestants from 500 years ago didn't like what is in them.
I would now ask you - why haven't you eliminated the New Testament Deuterocanonicals? What reason do you keep them and eliminate the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals? I would be curious to hear an explanation, as I haven't heard one yet from a Protestant who actually believed that garbage that the "Apocrypha" are not inspired. When are you getting rid of Revelation???
Regards
Well, since some of our friends seem to give her credit for everything else, maybe this would be a job for .............. "Mary Maids"? :)
Romans 11
25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
can you cite such an article regarding why protestants call 282 words of st paul in scriputure inapplicable and outdated?
indeed the 'christian' who follows the Jews is no Christian but a converted gentile.
So much for the latent part. This thread is becoming quite the revelator.
Sorry, I don't see the significance of your quoting Romans 11.
Regards
Sadly, it appears we do. It seems we don't simply worship differently from you, we worship a different God.
Well that sounds pretty drastic. I wouldn't go that far, ........ yet. :) What about this issue is a tipping point for you? What is your interpretation of verses like the following? :
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Rom 8:18-21 : 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God .
Phil 2:14-15 : 14 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe ...
1 John 3:1-2 : 3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God ! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God , and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
1 John 3:10 : 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Is the Bible not clear in distinguishing that some are the children of God and some are not?
Not a surprise.
The Bible is part of the Holy Tradition. What's your point?
I would say the Catholics do. Other than that, you are right: the Protestants would rather hold on to their personal truths, performing those 'reliable' self-tests.
"can you cite such an article regarding why protestants call 282 words of st paul in scriputure inapplicable and outdated?"
I don't know what "protestants" do with 282 words of Paul. I assume you are referring to women speaking and praying in the congregation in 1 Cor. 11 and 14 since that and tongues seem to be the last resort for most arguments about the inerpretation of scripture. My church does not allow women to preach or pray in the congregation when the whole church, including men are there. Men preach and pray for the congregation since men are the Elders in the church. Women do not teach men in our church but in our small group bible studies they contribute.
We do permit in certain circumstances tongues to be spoken but only when there are interpreters. To date we have not had any interpreters so we are still waiting. We do have prayer for healing and annoint with oil.
Every communion we have a love feast only we call it the fellowship hour and then we take communion and partake of the cup and the bread in remembrance of the Lord until He comes again. Before we do this there is a time for personal inspection for unconfessed sin and a time for private prayer.
I really don't particularly care how others look at these scriptures and quite frankly it is none of my business. I have been given my own charges to look after.
But I would ask you, how does your church practice the gifts of chapter 12 and 14? Is it only the professionals that have the gifts or do the congregants practice the gifts and do they do it in the midst of the congregation?
I would also ask why the Orthodox Church is a member of and supports organizations like the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches when both advocate and support homosexuality, ordination of women, denial of the divinity of Christ or the efficacy of His sacrifice for sin and deny the inspiration of the scriptures when Paul says to come out and be spearate from them?
1 Cor. 15:33, "Be not deceived: evil companionship corrupt good morals."
1 Cor. 5:9, "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:"
2 Cor. 6:14-17, " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
And he might well have been — until he realized that as much as good behavior does not warrant a reward, bad behavior does not suffer consequences.
In a Pavlovian/Skinnerian psychology model, you could very well make a case that the father was conditioning his younger son to do it again.
The parable says "do what you want, it will all be forgiven if you repent (even if the 'repentance' is under duress)."
As far as D-fendr's comment in 10,339 Note also that he is not less rewarded for his faithfulness than his brother is for his repentance: "you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.", I believe you are forgetting that in the Judaic society the older brother gets everything anyway unless he sells his birthright.
So, there is no reward in it. The problem with the parable is that human emotion is condemned as pride and arrogance, and yet the self-love of the younger son is erased when he 'repents' because everything he had was spent and dried up.
Also, the younger son's 'humility' is false humility; he realized his transgression, and he realized that getting a servant's job would be a reward compared to what he has done.
This goes hand-in-hand with Luther's pecca fortiter...
I'm a practicing Catholic and say the rosary most days and I am also a mother who has given birth twice. I have no problem with a virgin giving birth in a natural way. I think that some of the culture of Mary is due to celebate men obsessing on who she is. To me she was a real flesh and blood person just as Jesus was both God and a real flesh and blood man who pooped and had sexual fantasies and felt pain.
Jesus said that entertaining sexual fantasies was Adultery. Was Jesus an Adulterer?
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28 KJV)
Be careful where you take the "fully man" part of Our Lord. Sexual fantasies, more often than not, are lustful, and lust is sin. He obviously did not sin.
The author of that spendid article forgot that Greek-speaking Jews (who used the Septuagint OT two hundred years before Christ) were also Jews and had the right to limit their own canon.
He had hormones. He loved. Sex is not sin.
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.