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/
Is "Luther lied" any more personal that "Your church lied"?
It appeared to me this conversation was about to go in that direction, therefore I raised a yellow flag of caution.
Israel ... of the twelve tribes.
I don't know of any other woman but Mary who gave birth to Christ, ...
As you said ... Revelation is highly metaphorical.
Perhaps we can agree on that. ;^)
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
Wrong, keys bind and loose in heaven. This is true in chapter 16 and 18.
Annalex. All I can say is study Scripture. What Calvin says, what Luther says, what Augustine says, what any man/woman/child says is nothing if it contradicts Scripture. All Scripture is given by God and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.
Scripture is where you will find the truth and the Holy Spirit will lead the way.
Guess we better let the thread try to get back to Mary somehow. Though the other discussions do become relevant when a particular group claims authority to be angry about her portrayal. Such authority deserves to be examined, which I think we've done.
Have a good day.
I agree the hierarchal structure emerged in response to perceived threats. The distinction is that this particular system was not mandated by the Apostles. We have no examples of Apostles appointing successors, or Bishops, and proclaiming that they have unique authority and power. So if you wish to argue that the leadership system that developed was of divine intervention that's an interesting topic, but you really can't claim that the leadership system was set up by the Apostles themselves.
I had two Greek roommates in college.
They sure know how to party. 8~)
Been there done that. No fun ;-(
The problem with this interpretation is it is inconsistent with how the Apostles, acting as missionaries, helped in setting up churches. James, the brother of Jesus, is the only Apostle we see acting as a Bishop residing in Jerusalem exclusively and even then decisions were made in a congregational/collegial manner.
Acts 15:6 "Now the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter."
This is definitely not excluded to "bishops". It doesn't even make sense to try to parse this out as part applying to bishops only.
Would it be accurate to say, in your view, that there was a hierarchy in the Church when the Apostles lived, but not after they died?
"Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully."
And, as Annalex says, there is a difference from the very beginning between the Theotokos and the rest of humanity according to Catholic teaching. This is the main point that we Orthodox have been making about the I.C., since it is not in line with Orthodox teaching, as we have explained.
The fact that our teaching on original sin means that the I.C. is not required for the Virgin to be sinless does not change the fact that the Catholic doctrine makes her beginning ontologically different from every other post-fall human.
Not quitej. First there were Apostles, Elders then everyone else. When the apostles dies they were down to Elders and everyone else.
Thanks for your reply.
What does "One Apostolic Church" in the creeds mean in your view?
In regards to it now being "Elders and everyone else" is the Church - after the death of the original Apostles - essentially a democracy, with everyone else choosing the Elders (elders having one vote), or do the Elders have more say in who becomes an Elder?
I'm finding it useful in areas like this where there is such a strong disagreement on interpretation to look at what the Apostles actually did. If they believed the interpretation was meant to set up an autocratic hierarchal structure they would have personally picked the Bishops for churches they helped found and declared these Bishops the final authority. Instead, what the Apostles did was assist the various congregations in selecting their own leaders based on the charismatic gifts they possessed and the churches made decisions as a group, or through the elders (plural) that the congregation had selected.
WmFights, it goes even further than the verse you quoted. Look who was there. It wasn't just apostles and elders....
In Act 15 here are the participants mentioned in order:
The Apostles
- Peter (speaking, by the way of how God gave the Gentiles the Holy Ghost and ending: 11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.)
- Paul
- James
The Elders
Barnabus
All the MULTITUDE
Simeon? (doesn't have to be there, but it appears he is)
The whole church
After this cast of characters discussed the matter, the decision was made to send out missionaries (Paul and Barnabus) to the Gentiles. Who was the decision made by? Peter? He was a participant. All of the Apostles? Not alone. The College of Cardinals? No. The Elders? No. But, the Apostles, the Elders AND THE WHOLE CHURCH. The same then write a letter. Not exactly the system that would be after the centralized organization took control.
Whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a very minor point IMO. If I were to declare tomorrow that I thought Mary was a perpetual virgin it wouldn't change any of my other beliefs.
Personally I think the emphasis on Mary is a BIG theology error.
That being said, I doubt if you would say that a scholar like Jerome didn't understand these nuances when he translated the Bible from Greek to Latin, now would you? I also doubt if there are any subtle parts of the Bible that has not been hashed out over and over again in the last 2,000 years by all sorts of experts versed in all sorts of cultures. I have several books on Bible culture sitting on my shelf. There are references on these things.
How do you verify that what they are telling you is correct?
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.