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/
Thank you. That's all you can say about the verses I used?
It sure is depressing and worrisome, one day all is good and the next day our Saviour sacrificed himself for nothing
The Bible tells us that the heaven rejoices even if one lost soul returns to God. He is impartial and doesn't do the numbers game.
has anyone said that it was a mistranslation when Jesus said "it is finished"?
I am not sure what you are aiming at. "Finished" to me means that he completed that which He came to accomplish 7#151; to fulfill the Law.
The same way as you do. The difference is that the Church always taught that our salvation is neither a simple gift nor entirely work, but a combination of both. This does not diminish God, because it is His will that we can "choose life." (cf Deut 30:19)
Not any more than saying He allows evil.
That's not comparable. The only way God creates evil under Reformed theology is by placing an artificial condition upon God. Of course Reformers don't do that, only critics do. How convenient. God has no duty to prevent evil from happening, yet upon hearing that Reformers believe God controls everything, critics immediately place that duty upon God. This is very different from God's nonexistent choices, if they are based on foreknowledge. Nothing need be added.
What law is that?
So, you are saying God can't allow free will but He can allow evil? Aren't you placing finite choices on God's repertoir? It's not His 'duty"; it's His will.
You mean 7#151;? That's "Murphy's Law." :) A typo that should have looked like mdash "—" instead of 7#151;. :)
Other than that I am sure you know I was referirng to the Law of the Prophets as in Mat 5:17.
I'm asking you what was the law that Jesus fulfilled in Matthew 5:17?
Free will is a myth; a phantom of our vanity. It's God's world and everything contained therein.
This is good news for those who believe in the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world who know their salvation is due to His perfect sacrifice alone.
No, our freedom is a gift of God. Captivity is not borne of love.
"So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants" (Deu 30:19)
The authority/validity of the Law or the Prophets of the Old Testament.
But what was the Law specifically? What did the Law say that Christ was fulfilling?
I spoke earlier of "free will" being within parameters. Thus, the lost are "free" to sin (from the human POV), and they do. God allows it. It is not His duty to stop it, and neither is it His will to stop it because He doesn't. God maintains FULL control of everything, but He does not zap people causing them to do evil. He leaves them alone, knowing the result will be evil. Since He has no duty to intervene, He is not the cause.
The other way to look at it is that the lost are purely slaves to sin. This does not give an impression of freedom, but is of course Biblical and absolutely true. But even here, God is still not the cause of sin, He allows it in the same way. There is no duty to prevent it, nor a will to prevent it (to the extent He doesn't). God didn't cause the lost to be slaves to sin, Adam did.
Ko: I get the feeling you don't want to answer a straight forward question. Is it because Jesus said "it is finished" past tense?
To put it succinctly: that depends on who is reading it.
No not at all. I am also not avoiding to answer. It really depends who is reading it: the Jews will see no foreshadowing of Christ in the Law and the Prophets; the Christians will, etc.
It's one of those topics that one can either say "Okay," or start a new thread on the subject.
And so are the 'saved.'
The other way to look at it is that the lost are purely slaves to sin
Or that the 'saved' are slaves to righteousness.
Either we are free or we are slaves, but we can't be both.
Or that the 'saved' are slaves to righteousness. Either we are free or we are slaves, but we can't be both.
Well, that's why I have been making a distinction. But if you want a bottom line, then the lost are slaves to sin and the saved are slaves to righteousness, just as the Bible says. If a critic wants to now say that this makes everyone robots (and God the author of evil), then his argument is with scripture.
We do not believe in "free will" in the sense that it can trump God's will. My understanding of your theology is that man's will does indeed trump God's, given that you say God's will is that all men be saved. This has God willingly transferring His sovereignty away from Himself to place it in fallible man. The same thing happens with the claimed authority of the Church. Via this transfer, God must decrease so that man can increase. That just isn't Biblical.
YOU: To put it succinctly: that depends on who is reading it.
This isn't a trick question. In post 11,121 you wrote:
"Finished" to me means that he completed that which He came to accomplish; to fulfill the Law.
For the fourth time, what was the Law that Christ fulfilled?
If your interpretation of scripture ends up with robots or slaves, you've gone off wrong. If free will is an illusion, then all experience is an illusion and we might as well debate our dreams.
That one can read scripture and come to this conclusion should amaze us and it emphasizes that anything is possible with sola scriptura as the foundation.
I'm sorry, I should make sure first. Are you of the view that free will is a myth or an illusion?
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.