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 what I call the ultimate in Adamesque pride over which I shed meany a tear in shame.
The world is not created to our measure, albeit many (a la Dawkins) may feel otherewise. The ultimate arrogance is the foolishness that insists that simply because I can't see it, it must not exist.
Ergo, radio waves cannot and must not exist! :)
For God is (strictly speaking) “non-existent reality” — by which I mean He is not subject to the categories of space and time but is, as Plato said, “Beyond” (i.e., utterly transcendent to) the world (or Cosmos). Neither Aristotelian logic nor the scientific method can deal with this tremendous immensity.
Exactly! Very well said.
= = = =
Strongly agree.
Thanks.
Yes! Repent and He gently, and ever so lovingly, pushes us back “on track.”
To quote a creat hesychastic Father, “I neither fasted, nor kept vigils, nor slept on bare floor, but, to use the Pslmist’s words,’I humbled myself and God saved me.’” [Saint Symenon the New Theologian, 10th century AD)
= = = =
Beautiful.
Alas, that pesky
The good that I would do; I don’t;
The bad I wouldn’t do; I do
is sometimes an agonizingly and exceedingly frustrating thing to OVERCOME as quickly and thoroughly in a given area as one would want.
Indeed, that may be so. I am very sure that the asymmetry is not an accident.
= = =
That’s certainly my emphatic conviction.
Thanks.
It is as if reality for them is the effect of observation.
Bless you for saying so. PRAISE GOD FOR ANYTHING GOOD OR USEFUL.
Had to go back and see what was so insightfully wonderful! LOL.
Rats. So I have to be more obscure to get a longer Angel Gal response! LOL.
Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated.
PTL, of course.
The world is not created to our measure, albeit many (a la Dawkins) may feel otherewise. The ultimate arrogance is the foolishness that insists that simply because I can’t see it, it must not exist.
Ergo, radio waves cannot and must not exist! :)
= = =
Very true. Well said.
Thx.
But saying it's an effect neither one of these postulates explains just how this space is 'created.'
A physical body occupies space; radiant energy travels 'through' space. If we take all the energy and matter out of space, the space then by necessity 'collapses.' Collapsews into what?
is sometimes an agonizingly and exceedingly frustrating thing to OVERCOME as quickly and thoroughly in a given area as one would want
Yup.
Thank you.
Only God can create space/time ex nihilo.
It is even more astonishing because physical causation itself relies on space/time: in the absence of time, events cannot occur and in the absence of space, things cannot exist. All cosmologies require space/time for causation.
Any refreences? And if indeed so, what is light then?
I am very familiar with optical design and engineering of astronomical imaging systems, and this comes as a surprise because all our calculations of optics and image quality assesments are based on both premsises.
Goodness!
What do I know. Just one of the massive number of threads I scan so frequently—98% on FR. I’m very sure it was on FR.
I don’t recall anything about the title.
I was just very struck by this rather longish lasting “truth” about light being proven wrong suddenly. I think it was a European experiment. But I think it was quickly verified in the USA. It was a very clever experimental design. I think it involved splitting a laser beam etc. etc.
It was on the outer limits of my easy understanding of such things so I didn’t dwell overlong on it. Sorry.
I think that’s the best I can do. But I’m certain the thread was on FR. And, I think in the last 3-6 weeks.
Goodness! PINGING KOSTA50 THIS TIME, TOO.
What do I know. Just one of the massive number of threads I scan so frequently—98% on FR. I’m very sure it was on FR.
I don’t recall anything about the title.
I was just very struck by this rather longish lasting “truth” about light being proven wrong suddenly. I think it was a European experiment. But I think it was quickly verified in the USA. It was a very clever experimental design. I think it involved splitting a laser beam etc. etc.
It was on the outer limits of my easy understanding of such things so I didn’t dwell overlong on it. Sorry.
I think that’s the best I can do. But I’m certain the thread was on FR. And, I think in the last 3-6 weeks.
But it wasn't the only possible statement.
Only God can create space/time ex nihilo
Well, with God anything is possible, including that the universe was created as is. God doesn't need space/time to create. Besides, a periodic (oscilating) universe would keep re-creacting itself in a perpetuum mobile fashion without any need of God. Each repetition would be the 'beginning.'
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.