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/
:>)
Hardly. We were still trying to round the wheels on our chariots......
Oh yes, I'm agreeing.
The symmetry view is that if everything is the same, perfect formless, there is no cause.. and your points apply here.
The view is, from a point of view of physics, a break occurred in this symmetry.. a point unlike all the others, which brought forth a difference-in charge let's say. This began the cascade of reactions, force/cause, result/change, force... cause arose due to there being a break in formless symmetry. This results in cause and effect, space and time. As you describe.
So rather than space/time expanding from big bang, it can be viewed as broken symmetry cascading out, like cracks in an ice pond.
If time and space are both creations, and geometry is the result, a I AM predated creation, then all that was was God.
I agree. From what I understand about everyone on the "To:" line, we're going to live forever! In that sense, much of our lives have not yet happened.
If that's how you define it, then we're in agreement. I would call it free will and omniscience, but if we get the same place, we get the same place.
But, so often our side wants to leave off the predestination part. The saved will end up being saved, and the damned will end up being damned.
That part makes them uncomfortable. They feel a need to special plead for God so no one will think he's not your "average Joe nice guy."
With the definitions you've provided, indeed. Our current study of Acts has convicted me to follow the Great Commission with a renewed drive to reach the lost for Christ.
John Wesley warned not to waste one's time on those who will not hear.
That doesn't mean they won't some day hear, but it does mean not to beat your head against the wall.
Preach to the receptive.
So reduce God to something lower and elevate man. Next thing you know we claim that we become Gods.
I wasn't recommending it. I was suggesting that that is the only way out of the "omniscience dilemma."
Redefining God's omniscience is essentially what the Open Theists had to do.
Our small group is actually going to our local mall with a banner asking: "What is the significance of Easter" where we can get input from others, get a chance to chat and hand out whatever they'll accept.
We're also going to a local skate park where we'll BBQ food and offer it to the kids at the park and at the same time talk to them about God.
I'm looking forward to both events with great anticipation for what God will bring about. Of course, He already knows what will happen. ;-)
"to blaspheme the Holy Spirit"
You raise a great point. When we willfully disregard the Holy Spirit dwelling in us we are disrespecting the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit won't abandon us and will ultimately guide us to recognize our sin.
ROTFLOL!
The more things change the more they stay the same.
"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!"
Let's see if we can reduce this whole problem to a simple mathematical formula.
Septuagint (O.T. + Apocrypha) + N.T. = Church
Septuagint - Apocrypha + N.T. = non Church (hatred towards the Church)
Therefore: Apocrypha = Church
And let there be light.
Or maybe the saved are those who end up being saved and the damned are those that end up not being saved.
This semitautology allows for omniscience without double predestination.
LOL!!! It seems to me the "Church" is made up of anything that ISN'T considered the word of God. Wouldn't it have been better to express it as:
He surely knows you're gonna eat too much Bar-B-Que.. :)
lol
Marysecretary, You MUST obey the apocrypha!
Thusly (mathematicians are allowed to say that)
S (OT + A) + NT = C
SOT + A + NT = C
SOT + NT = C-A
(SOT + NT)/T = (C-A)/T
SO+N=(C-A)/T
So, therefore, this should be proof to all sceptics that your son is really a cat.
And since a duck is a witch or a block of wood, I think we have something irrefutable going on here.
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.