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/
What do you 'owe' your children, FK? You feed them, clothe them, provide for them...you'd think it immoral to feed only one and neglect the other(s) because, before they were even conceived, you decided that some will be cared for and others will be neglected.
It was +John who had (experienced) the revelation. Christ revealed to John..."things which must shortly come to pass..." (shortly, I would imagine is in cosmic terms...)
God doesn't receive or have a revelation. It is God who reveals and it is man who has a revelation.
It's the central, but not the only thing in the life of the Church.
I would also like to say here that having read so many Reformed and other Protestant views, it is no wonder the world is becoming secular or searching for alternate religions.
Having a God who makes 'illegitimate' children He wants nothing to do with but throw them into fire is not the kind of 'father figure' any civilized society would hold up as a model.
So the Church is bigger than Holy Tradition, which is bigger than the bible?
That's silly, DM. Are you bigger than your heart, your lungs or your stomach? It's all part of one organism. There was a Church before there was a New Testament.
Oh, there's that "spirit" abiding in you again... Another teaching moment lost...
Regards
It is amazing we continuing to have this conversation. Don't they realize that they are tossing out the baby with the bath water by questioning the Canon and siding with the Jews' decisions??? The only explanation behind this continued absurd self-defeating logic is a hatred towards the Church. They will commit intellectual suicide so as to "prove" the Church was WRONG!
Regards
You responded . why would I want to? It is the revelation of Jesus Christ, the end of prophecy
!!! Use your logic, brother. Because the Jews didn't accept it, thus we must remove it from the Canon. Also, it is a Deuterocanonical book and was NOT universally accepted by the Church. The same arguments you use vs. the OT Deuts you somehow drop when discussing the NT Deuts. Don't you see your position?
Regards
First of all, Luther also caved - he didn't remove James.
Secondly, don't you get it? Your continued defense of the removal of the Deuterocanonicals is based on the Jews - who denied Christ. Is that whom you will side with? How often must I remind you that you are siding with the Pharisees who rejected Christ and the Christians??? In you rush to condemn the Church and anything Catholic, you commit intellectual suicide and don't even realize it...
Regards
Any Scripture on that one? And how does the Spirit reveal what the Canon is? Through Joe Smoe? Please...
Regards
Typing the word SIN in capital letters is SIN. opps. wow. Guess that there's no hope for salvation for any of us. Eye of a needle sort of thing. But I am redeemed and so are you, Mary. Have a blessed day.
TRUE, TRUE AS USUAL, A-G:
= =
Truly, I believe meanness of every kind results when people fail to love God absolutely (Great Commandment) and their neighbor unconditionally. (Matt 22)
Or, to paraphrase the Chambers devotion today:
When you talk to other people, you cannot hear what God is saying.
God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all.
= =
Now in the application . . .
Just our outstinks.
Actually that line above by the Orthodox bro would be a very funny joke about humanity except that it's too dreadfully untrue.
I didn't realize the Orthodox Bible had removed:
"The heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it."
IIRC,
The Hobbit threads have that honor of being the longest.
If memory serves me correctly, the writer of Revelation was a Jew.
I notice that you say New Testament rather than saying Word of God. Why is that?
Sometimes it's clear that there just isn't any discussion possible.
Certainly it seems that way, Jo. Historical facts show that they are wrong. There was NO Jewish 'canon' before Jamnia. Judaism was an amalgam of different sects, using different canons.
They also treat the Septuagint 'Greek' OT like some Gentile imitation, saying that the Jews had the right to determine their own canon. And Greek-speaking Jews were not Jews with the same rights?
They also neglect the fact that many Jews used the Septuagint with all its books as Scripture for at least two and a half centuries before Christ and no one had told them to stop it! Not even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.
By some fantastic 'coincidence' the Christ-denying Pharisaical rabbis of Jamnia in 100 AD threw out not just the Septuagint but also the NT. The only reason they threw out the Septuagint is because the Apostles and their followers used it as the OT. No one ever suggested it before that. No one!
No he wasn't. As far as Judaism is concerned, one can be an atheist and be a Jew, but one cannot believe in Christ and be a Jew.
The author was an apostate Jews who no longer lived like a Jew, and who believed that "man can become God."
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.