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/
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." -- Romans 9:6-8
And so how do we KNOW who is the "children of the promise"? Because someone makes that claim for themselves? Or is it expressed in one's faith working through love? Read the last sentence of Romans 2. That is my take on the matter. The point is many will say "Lord, Lord", but few are really His "children".
Regards
Why does the development of doctrine always result in moving Christ further away from His Sheep, not closer. It is something I've never understood. Instead of King he becomes the CEO who delegates to the saints, and really is none too happy to have you approach him outside the parameters designed by the developers of doctrine?As a convert the Church, I'd say that was a characterization that I have not been taught and simply does not meet anything in my experience.
It's the kind of thing people like to say about us.
What the rest of the argument amounts to is that the truth is a lot like some lies. Therefore it can't be true.
Oh yeah, and Catholics are all bout rationalization and lack of insight, but the debunkers have views which are totally reasonable and unaffected by any prior experience or notions they might have.
No sale.
Has anyone attacked your personal beliefs and belittled you because of them? I find it offensive when the Lord's Mother is spoken of in such a manner - the woman that the Scriptures say "ALL GENERATIONS SHALL PRAISE [HER}". If I was an unbiased and unreligious person, I would think that Mary was devilish, dragging people to hell, by reading some of these posts...
Regards
God told this woman to cover her head? Personally? That is interesting. Again, as I said at the end of my post, we can wonder whether Paul was giving personal opinion regarding the covering of heads. I can understand that take. The more important issue is HOW do we know something is from God and not our over-active imaginations? This takes discernment. That is why the Church is so important on such issues.
Regards
LOL...Does that mean Adam and Eve are divine, too?
Have you read Veritatis Splendor? Fides et Ratio? Any of J2P2's stuff? You know what he thinks from sound bites? You know how he chooses words from sound bites?
You know about the date of the assasination attempt and what it meant to him -- BEFORE you Google it? You have no clue what Marian Spirituality is about. And you don't know about the hours he spent prostrate before an altar and crucifix -- which now no doubt you will characterize as idolatry. Nope, one incident arising out of a spirituality which you do not want to understand and you have reached your verdict.
In other news: How how you can put up the posts you put up or look at the first page of this thread and not say the bashing comes mainly and most viciously from Prots escapes me.
"Magicsterical" anyone? How can that have any other purpose than to offend and alienate? What is it accomplishing? It doesn't change my mind, it is offensive and painful to read. You will note I no longer discuss theology with you. Fruits much? I assume you didn't want to discuss theology.
In the face of the abuse that has been aimed at us from around post #9 when I consider the gratuitously offensive mischaracterizations and smug condescension, I am glad I don't have to encounter any of you in the flesh.
Right in this post, you insinuate that some of us are choosing Mary over God? This is incredible to me. It is not worthy of a response other than that.
BTW, Guffaws to the max is many orders of magnitude gentler than 'used of satan to lure folks to hell'
I answer that: "Guffaws to the max" is saying it's laughable, contemptible. The other is an opinion which can be discussed.
THESE ARE THINGS WHICH YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THE RC AND ORTHY APOLOGISTS ROUTINELY DO, RIGHT? If so, I'd have to agree:
We put up references to the official teaching of our church and to the distinction between latria and dulia. They mock them and return to saying that, whatever account WE give of ourselves, they know better what we are doing than they do.
Then, they make assertions about matters of fact which are easily shown to be false. When this is pointed out, they mock or attack the credibility of those pointing it out.
Instead of reasonable argument, they repeat themselves over and over again, using Scripture like charms or incantations.
When invited to work together and to reason together, they accuse us of "parsing".
and so forth....
The Greek came through all weird -- at least on my confuser.
Aw c'mon. If you really hhink that I'm in the wrong place.
LOL! You'll need a graphic to mark the end of the debate when "Irving's Law" is invoked.
So stop it.
Stop posting to each other, stop mentioning each other on posts to others, stop referencing each other's posts and stop sending each other Freepmails!
I assume you are talking about 1 Corinthians 14:34 here.
Part of it. Other parts include Timothy and Titus.
Peace is the subject of these verses so no one should chatter in church, women or men. It doesn't mean they aren't to take part in the church. If it did then it would negate 11:5 of this Book which lets us know that women are to teach:
Clearly you are making things up.
5.But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Cor 11:13 says otherwise.
To prophesy is to teach. Women are to teach, as the men are. To shave her head would show dishonor. For her head to be covered doesn't mean a hat, scarf, etc. it means to have Christ over her.
Negative. She is covered 'because of the angels' (go figure, but that's what+Paul is saying). Besides, the the head of a woman is man not Christ, according to the Apostle (1 Cor 11:3). You are making things up.
That power is Christ and it is for His protection against the fallen angels - the same reason a man shouldn't have long hair. They are perverted and he also needs Christ' protection.
Fascinating! But that's not what the verse says.
Acts 2: 17.And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, " I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy......
+Paul doesn't say women can't prophesy; they need to prophesy covered, and when they are in church they need to be covered.
18.And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
Again, women can prophesy, no argument there.
We're all part of the body of Christ and all parts are necessary and should all be cherished - none more important than the other.
The Church is not egalitarian. That is a liberal fantasy. The Church is structured.
We trust that some of the charisms of the Holy Spirit DO coincide with the 'institutional church" in the sense that real spiritual gifts are objectively conveyed through the sacrament of ordination.
I keep getting surprised by the consequences of the difference in ecclesiology.
Dr. E has repeatedly implied or come right out and said I was Bering false witness. You can go to post #5195 for the first time she suggested I was lying.
lol. And I guess if you say you saw it, then it must be true, huh?
In #5252 she said "There you go again, bearing false witness." If tolerating that is the price of participation, the price is too high.
Hmmmmm
personally arbitrarily GENERALIZING a church discipline Scripture to
alllllll questions?
Perhaps such practices is one way that the magicsterical comes up with so many outrageous notions about Scripture! LOL.
The same could be said of Jesus' aversion to liturgy in every example of Him reading in the Jewish place of worship.
I don't have time and energy to respond to the whole post.
But to this:
= = = =
You say I am saying none of us has a blind spot, (which clearly I am not saying or implying) but the reality is you are saying we're all, all us RCs and Eo's as blind as bats, but that you know the thoughts of all of us.
= = = =
No, I haven't said that. I don't think or believe that. Many have evidenced significant blindness.
As to the diversity of sects and some have to be in error . . . . I dealt with that a long time ago. There is just as much of a diversity of sects WITHIN the Roman church at odds with each other over varying destrees of issues from serious to petty. There is essentially no difference on that score. But somehow the Protties different little groups are hiddeously hellacious and the different warring sects within the RC edifice are just different shades of Marion white? Where's the barf bag.
Infer and extrapolate and rationalize all you wish.
There's NOT A SHRED of evidence IN the NEW TESTAMENT of such sentiments of Christ TOWARD LITURGY ITSELF AS LITURGY.
NOT A MICROGRAM OF A SHRED OF A WHIFF of evidence.
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.