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/
Moses' mother;
Ezekiel's mother;
Jeremiah's mother;
Elijah's mother;
Elisha's mother;
John the Baptist's mother;
Joseph's mother . . .
NONE OF THEM CARRIED GOD IN THEIR WOMBS.
1. There was plenty of joy and heartache for each of them related to God's uncommon call on their sons' lives.
None of them was visited by an Angel of God and told that they would bear the Savior.
2. SCRIPTURE did NOT foist Mary up on any pedestal. NONE.
Unless you read Luke chapter 1.
3. There is not a shred of evidence from the time that GOD foisted Mary up on ANY pedestal. NONE.
Again, God's Angel seems to disagree with you.
4. The ONLY route Mary was "elevated" was through !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! and doctrines of men and of demons . . .
Or through the Blessed Virgin Mary's conversations with the Angel, with Elizabeth and with her Son and things said by Him.
5. much as the elevation of the Bishop of Rome being elevated through political power mongering etc.
So, you consider the Blessed Mother a "political power monger."
6. There's plenty of SCRIPTURAL warnings and exhortations to give folks more than pause for even thinking of such a thing. CHRIST IS TO BE ALL IN ALL . . . AS IN ALL in all. That doesn't leave ANYTHING over for Mary or any other mortal.
Again, the Angel of God and our Lord both seem to differ with YOPIOS on this.
7. Veneration, adoration and a host of other quasi and literal worship terms and practices toward ANY one else TAKES AWAY what would otherwise be available for GOD ALONE. God is VERY clear throughout OT and NT how HE feels about such robbing of HIS Glory.
Your opinion based upon teachings that His Church has never recognized.
8. Rationalizations do not pretty the picture one micro-gram's worth. Idolatry is still idolatry whether it's toward a person, an idea; a system; a philosophy; a TV; a bad seductive habit; . . . whatever.
So, by this thinking, we disobey God and cease from calling His mother blessed?
The rest is simply more gibberish based on YOPIOS (which is the single most unbiblical tradition ever invented and it is demonstrably untrue).
Leaving aside any sort of "direct" action of God, there's the way kids affect their parents. I had the privilege and blessing of being the "primary care giver" of the 'orrible brat child (hereinafter OBC). And she was deathly ill and needed lots of care. And then when she started getting better the delerium of happiness and fun can scarcely be described. Whatever your theology is, I hope it's strong, because it will need to deal with the fact that more than once I, moiself, was cast as the Theotokos in little plays the OBC put on. And spent happy hours doing the shopping while lugging her around in the baby backpack in the supermarket and giving a running commentary on what I was doing, while people looked at me as though I was a few fries short of a happy meal.
The OBC changed me. Attentiveness to the OBC changed me. And my point is, imagine that the OBC was God the Son of God. How much did that change our Lady?
Hint: A LOT!
The other issue is that God seems to like delegating. I see more and more that there is the issue of monotheism and the number of ways to be monotheistic. And some of us think that any homage given to any saint is somehow an attack on God's not only being Prime, but also being, well, God.
I wonder, does God NEED a Bible?
Really? I was thinking the same thing about you. You try to explain away James VERY CLEAR writings (THREE TIMES I QUOTED we are not saved by faith alone!!!) by pointing me to Paul's writings to the Romans and Galatians? Give me a break. Even using those writings, nowhere does Paul say we are saved by faith alone.
However, I am addressing James, not Paul. All you are doing is throwing up smoke and mirrors trying to move the topic to another book and another writer. Why? Because it is crystal-clear that the Bible says we are saved by faith AND works. By going to some of Paul's more confusing writings, (as Peter notes in 2 Peter) you are trying to justify your theology by going beyond what Paul wrote.
Unfortunately for your point of view, anyone who can read James 2 will find that one is not saved by faith alone.
End of story.
Regards
"The sin was Adam's. That is the orthodox opinion."
That's correct, Alex.
Alex, +Paul's position on women is clear.
(I imagine the Prots don't have that verse in their bibles; and the Church never reads it! I wonder why)
OK, thanks. Mary
Huh?
Of course. This is the meaning of Luke 11:28.
Why, yes. What St. Paul says here is that a woman has no teaching authority. This is reflected in all-male priesthood and cannot be changed, nor should it.
+John Chrysostomos certainly commented on 1Tim.2:12. In Homily XXXI on Romans he writes:
"Ver. 6. “Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us.”
How is this? a woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women amongst us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them. But if we come to know whence it comes, that they are so adorned, we too shall speedily overtake them. Whence then is their adorning? Let both men and women listen. It is not from bracelets, or from necklaces, nor from their eunuchs either, and their maid-servants, and gold-broidered dresses, but from their toils in behalf of the truth. For he says, “who bestowed much labor on us,” that is, not on herself only, nor upon her own advancement, (for this many women of the present day do, by fasting, and sleeping on the floor), but upon others also, so carrying on the race Apostles and Evangelists ran. In what sense then does he say, “I suffer not a woman to teach?” (1 Tim. ii. 12.) He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward (1 Cor. xiv. 35), and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, “How knowest thou, O woman, if thou shalt save thy husband?” (ib. vii. 16.) Or how came he to suffer her to admonish children, when he says, but “she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety?” (1 Tim. ii. 15.) How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him. And he does not say, who taught much, but “who bestowed much labor,” because along with teaching (tou logou) she performs other ministries besides, those in the way of dangers, in the way of money, in the way of travels. For the women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way they went travelling with them, and also performed all other ministries. And even in Christ’s day there followed Him women, “which ministered unto Him of their substance” (Luke viii. 3), and waited upon the Teacher."
And then in Homily IV on Titus he writes:
"For this was particularly the vice of women and of old age. For from their natural coldness at that period of life arises the desire of wine, therefore he directs his exhortation to that point, to cut off all occasion of drunkenness, wishing them to be far removed from that vice, and to escape the ridicule that attends it. For the fumes mount more easily from beneath, and the membranes (of the brain) receive the mischief from their being impaired by age, and this especially causes intoxication. Yet wine is necessary at this age, because of its weakness, but much is not required. Nor do young women require much, though for a different reason, because it kindles the flame of lust.
“Teachers of good things.”
And yet thou forbiddest a woman to teach; how dost thou command it here, when elsewhere thou sayest, “I suffer not a woman to teach”? (1 Tim. ii. 12.) But mark what he has added, “Nor to usurp authority over the man.” For at the beginning it was permitted to men to teach both men and women. But to women it is allowed to instruct by discourse at home. But they are nowhere permitted to preside, nor to extend their speech to great length, wherefore he adds, “Nor to usurp authority over the man.”
Ver. 4. “That they may teach the young women to be sober.”
Observe how he binds the people together, how he subjects the younger women to the elder. For he is not speaking there of daughters, but merely in respect of age. Let each of the elder women, he means, teach any one that is younger to be sober."
Later on in the same Homily he teaches:
"For if it should happen that a believing woman, married to an unbeliever, should not be virtuous, the blasphemy is usually carried on to God; but if she be of good character, the Gospel obtains glory from her, and from her virtuous actions. Let those women hearken who are united to wicked men or unbelievers; let them hear, and learn to lead them to godliness by their own example. For if thou gain nothing else, and do not attract thy husband to embrace right doctrines, yet thou hast stopped his mouth, and dost not allow him to blaspheme Christianity; and this is no mean thing, but great indeed, that the doctrine should be admired through our conversation."
"But I'm fairly sure the implications and size of said measure would be different in my view."
I don't doubt that for a minute, Q! :)
"Have bookmarked the links.
Though I'd RATHER TRY to herd cats
or get 3 root canals . . .
because you, a friend and bro, have asked, I'll try and get to it in the next 2-3 weeks."
Ah well, Q, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink, can I? At least read the link to +John of Damascus. Its not long at all and very scriptural.
The study of Scripture is full of surprises.
To take custody of the word of God you don't need to cover your beard, in fact, in view of 1 Timothy 2:12, just explained, a beard is a definite plus.
Having little to do with this thread, the following email is still a spiritual boost and important lesson so I want to share it with all of you
just cause. . . . sort of re: DUCT TAPE
#######################
This story was written by our second son, Brent. It will brighten your day.
RaJean Vawter
Sugar and spice and everything nice ... that's what little girls are made of.
Snaps and snails and puppy dog tails ... that's what little boys are made of.
Oh yeh, ... and duct tape!
Austin is two months from finishing 5th grade and is looking forward to the end of Friday afternoon vocabulary tests. A straight-A student, he consistently makes perfect scores on the spelling portion but is always an answer or two off on the vocabulary piece. "Trick questions," he contends! But the truth is that he uses the "Dad, what does this word mean" definition instead of what the book wants him to memorize.
So last night we set out to memorize every definition exactly as it's defined in the book. Shouldn't be too hard for only 15 words, right? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Yet after more than an hour of solid study, he was still getting definitions mixed between words or forgetting key synonyms altogether. Our study time had quietly turned into an exercise in frustration, evidenced by the tear I now saw racing for his chin.
"I'm so dumb," Austin said with shoulders slumped and eyes floating. "Dude, that is not true. Go read the paper that's on the table." So he got up and read the short affirmation that I copied from my friends Chris and Michelle who have painted it on a wall in their house. It reads, "I am a reflection of the One who loves me most, created in His image on purpose. I'm supposed to be me and no one else could ever take my place. After all, I was made in the image of God."
We put vocabulary aside and I showed Austin what the Bible says about our purpose and potential as well as the tools at our disposal. And of course I reminded him that the greatest tool God ever gave us was duct tape. Oh wait, no. I meant to say prayer. Yes, prayer. But hey, what would happen if we prayed for duct tape?!
You may think this is a little twisted, but our bedtime prayer that night went something like this: "Lord, while Austin's sleeping, please shove a bunch of duct tape in his ears so all these vocabulary words he's been studying will stick and not fall out on his pillow."
So this morning when he woke up, I sat on the edge of his bed while we talked for a bit. Then as I was walking out of his room, I said "encounter." "E-N-C-O-U-N-T-E-R. It means a chance meeting; to meet unexpectedly; a battle or fight." I spun around and locked eyes with him, a proud smile evident on my face. "Good! What about indignant?" Again, he immediately spelled and defined it as if he were reading from the book. In rapid-fire succession, he proceeded to spell and define all 15 words without the slightest hesitation or error! At this point, he was sitting bolt upright on his bed with a wide-eyed look of surprise, excitement, pride, all mixed together.
He let out a short laugh, not believing what had just happened. I stepped forward, pointed to his ear and said, "Duct tape!"
I pray almost every day that God would be real and personal in my son's life. I don't just want Austin to know about God, I want him to truly know God. I want him to develop a friendship - serious at times, silly at others, yet always respectful, honest and attentive. That God would respond to a silly prayer in such a real way shows us that He wants the same thing. After all, we are a reflection of Him who loves us most!
Now Lord, please duct tape this into our heads that we would never forget!
Very sweet, Q. To know they are loved by God is the greatest gift a parent can give their children.
Oh, OK, now I see where you're coming from. I suppose I've never thought about it before. How does Jesus interpret? I suppose I've always just taken the "single meaning" road, but I've never gone into it enough to compare different techniques. That will take some thought. :)
You anticipated the follow up very well, thanks. I suppose I've never associated original sin with physical death so I wasn't thinking along those lines. What is the thinking on what physically happened to her body when it was assumed? Was she put back into it and still "using" it? :) I don't understand the purpose for her assumption.
You have quite a son and grandson - This was a wonderful story and it will be shared with my children and grandchildren. Thank you Quix.
According to the Church teaching, the souls are immortal, so death, by necessity, refers only to the body. We don't read of angels dying! But there is more to this, of course, and the best way to describe it is "play on words."
What is the thinking on what physically happened to her body when it was assumed?
I believe, the Church teaches that she sits next to her Son's feet. Again, this is one of those things we accept "on faith." My understanding is that because she never sinned, her body was immaculate (although her "nature" was mortal!), she will not be judged at the End of Times and was therefore taken to heaven as the saved will be at the second Coming.
Was she put back into it and still "using" it?
I would imagine so. Why else would we have them? Heaven is, I think, outside of the created world, so anything is possible.
I don't understand the purpose for her assumption.
The assumption is what will happen to the saved when they receive their new bodies at the End Of Times. Her body is immauclate, so she doesn't need one. Maybe those hwo are more convinced then I could produce some patristic comments on the assumption, if there are any.
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.