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/
Satan wagered that he can make Job curse God for misfortunes Satan would cause. The first thing all sorts of Evangelical ministers said when tsunami hit Thailand was "God's wrath!" (morons) I have seen many a "Christian" figuratively shake his hand at God for misfortune saying "How can God allow this? I am a good Christian, I go to church and pay my tithe..." Even Adam blamed God for giving him "that woman." Don't be spouting "official theology" at me, but take up reading comprehension, and NEVER blame God for anything.
I believe it but it is wholly irrational.
For us all, my Prayer is that we will 'Grow in Grace, and in the Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (2Pet.3:18)
Peter stumbled quite a bit as he matured. Paul hit the ground running. John and Mary (Luke 10:38-42) – in my view –found the “good part.”
The last will be the first.
Jesus did not open the eyes of the Apostles to this Truth until they had to know it. They could only handle so much at a time
That much is obvious.
You are quibbling over the translation
No, I am merely putting it in the context. That verse has been misleadingly used over and over to show that Peter knew Jesus was God. And for that he received the keys?
Like I said, no one, not even John not even the Mary said "I knew it!" when the news of resurrection arrived.
The point is that Peter was the first to receive this revelation from the Father
He did not see Jesus as God. He was simply stating that He is the future king (of Israel) He claims to be. There was no revelation there.
There is a physical body and there is a spiritual body
Yeah? And what exactly is a "spiritual body?" A spirit, by definition, has no body.
No, not unlike the entire OT and good part of the NT, where magic ("miracles") were used exclusively as "proof" of divine power necessary for others to believe.
Like the part when Peter's shadow passing over someone is enough to heal them. It says, people would line the streets with sick. Do you think if any of this were true that Christianity would have failed in Israel?
Amen, KM. God bless.
And I read the first chapter of Job and it says:
Job never did, not even after he lost everything.
Christianity was quite successful in Isreal until the diaspora.. When it REALLY began to spread.. like wildfire.. The pagans could'nt murder them fast enough.. It still spread..
Jews then were never really populous, anywhere.. Wonder how many Jews became Christians for the last 2000 years.. Not to speak of the fact that you can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time.. many Jews were Christians also.. Even today some Jewish familys will disown and shun a family member for becoming a christian..
AMEN! The natural world conspires to keep this truth hidden. But Scripture tells us that once a man is quickened by the Holy Spirit, that man is "different." He is spiritual rather than carnal, confident of his redemption by Jesus Christ who sacrificed once for all the sins of His flock, according to the will of God.
I would that every congregation or assembly would spend some time in discussing the Holy Spirit especially with newborn Christians.
They say opposite things. That much is certain.
Cherry picking Scripture can result in a perception of paradox which is not real
Every time there is a clear contradiction we call it a "paradox" and move on.
This is not “know” in the sense of recognize
I am aware of that.
And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God...Luke 4:41
Two things about this: first, demons were not what we think of "demons" (that had to wait until the Middle Ages), and two, what they are saying is that he is the Jewish messiah, the anointed of God, not that he is God himself.
What's the point of that verse anyway?
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:26-27
Look, this clearly contradicts Luke 4:41 where the demnons say they believe...yet John says I don't know you because you don't believe...which is it?
To paraphrase, if we declare Christ, He will declare us – if we deny Him, he will deny us
And here I though faith was a free (unconditional) gift of God as they say. Seems like there are some heavy ropes attached to this.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead
Only Paul (and one verse in Acts, probably under Pual's influence) says that Christ was raised by God. The Church professes that Christ rose on the third day. At no time was there a separation between His human and His divine nature. Christ did not need "God" to raise Him any more than He "needed" the Spirit to lead Him into wilderness. Christ's divine nature was suffcient to lead him and to raise Him.
and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Obviously, reading wasn't an option. So much for sola scriptura.
Oh, what a joke! There is no historical record of any massive Christians anywhere in Israel. There are no historical records of Jesus, His ministry, His trial, or anything. And pleas don't bring up Josephus, because his "reference" is doctored and corrupted in several versions.
Christ commissioned His apostles not to go to the Gentiles, but only to the tribes of Israel. They weren't terribly successful. And even Christ predicted that they would be thrown our of synagogues (it's in the NT).
As far as pagans murdering Christians, Saul was no pagan, he was a Pharisee. Obviously, the Jews were doing well hunting down their own apostates and killing them.
The Church in Israel was literally dying. The only way it was going to survive was to convince pagan Greeks and Romans by including them in the Gospel.
There were quite a bit of Jews in Diaspora dating back to the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem. Alexandria and Asia minor were full of diaspora Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew but Greek for centuries. There was also a large colony of Jews in Rome.
Well, is it rational or not? Even the Christians need a “sign.” They claim the presence of the Holy Spirit. The modern-day version of Gnosticism “I know, and you don’t.”
Kosta, very probably the Heavenly Kingdom is not bound to Aristotle's Third Law, the Law of the Excluded Middle, which roughly put maintains that in cases where things appear to be mutually exclusive, at least one of them must be "false." "Spirit" and "Body" seem to be mutually exclusive concepts. Yet to my way of thinking, it is better to consider them, not as mutually exclusive "opposites," but as complementarities.
The principle of complementarity comes to us (from of all places) the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory, the brainchild of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger. The prime example in that context is the question: Is this subatomic particle I "observe" a particle (body) or a wave? The answer is: It all depends on how you look, and what you're looking for. The main takeaway, however, is that the subatomic particle is actually always both at once; and the complete description of it cannot be given by reference to only one of its aspects (particle, wave): You need both.
Earlier you wrote that you believe in the resurrection of the body, but that such a thing is "irrational." If you are going to use reason as your yardstick to "measure" divine realities, I think you'll be endlessly frustrated. Our facility for understanding the world of nature has little if any bearing on our ability to explicate the divine. A different language other than reason is necessary....
I was reading somewhere the other day an interesting definition of faith: Faith = reason plus revelation (or prophecy). That, to me, is the greatest complementarity of all....
Thank you so much for your fascinating posts, dear kosta!
AMEN.
Precisely so. IMHO, a Christian begins to understand this when he has experienced both the knowledge of Scripture and the power of God through the indwelling Spirit.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matt 22:29
At that point, the questions he asks, the answers he receives are in a spiritual language that others like him also speak. The conversation may sound “illogical” or “spooky” to those who are not yet speaking in that spiritual language (I Cor 2)
==
INDEED.
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.