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/
The opposite is true in my experience.. I have known few Roman Catholics that were not nominal christians.. not all but most. . Most all roman catholics I've known trust and believed in the church, Not God(father, son, holy spirit) except incidentally.. The church to them is translated to mean the clergy.. extreme Mariolotry being the norm..
Not all of them but most all.. Stories(about the catholic experience) from some of them to me verified this condition is prevalent.. not absolute but prevalant..
You Tube has plenty on the Orthodox services. Of course, one has to know what's going on. The examples they have are very picturesque, but unless you have someone whispering in your ear what everything means it will be a learning curve.
Personally, the moment I enter a church, I leave this earth and leave all my arguments behind.
What have you learned?..
Well what is this all about?..
Be as candid as you dare.. You don't seem shy or wimpy..
No, but He doesn't live in the past either. He very much changes our destines, based on our decisions.
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles
Neat way to put it. Except it doesn't say WHY was it necessary to give the faith to those knowing they would repeatedly reject it and, when God stood in front of them, they would trade Him for a criminal, and would persecute His Church and throw His followers out of synagogues, and since Jamnia curse the Jesus of Nazareth.
Come on, Dr. E, if you were a Church elder in those days, you'd be scrambling to justify what was never the initial mission of Christ, for He leaves no doubt that He was "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24] and He prohibited His disciples from going to the Gentiles [cf Mat 10:5-6]
Clearly, and understandably, given the dating of the Gospels, and Acts, and what transpired in Israel with the Church and with the Temple, the mission of the church had to seek new home, as it was no longer sustainable in Israel.
The opposite is true in my experience.. I have known few Roman Catholics that were not nominal christians.. not all but most. . Most all roman catholics I’ve known trust and believed in the church, Not God(father, son, holy spirit) except incidentally.. The church to them is translated to mean the clergy.. extreme Mariolotry being the norm..
Not all of them but most all.. Stories(about the catholic experience) from some of them to me verified this condition is prevalent.. not absolute but prevalant..
= = = =
That’s been the OVERWHELMING majority of my experiences with RC’s too.
I have learned that life is the way it is even if I (or we) don't understand it. That opened the door.
That is a completely distorted perception; nothing oculd be farther from the truth.
That's mythology.
I have a missionary friend who was preaching in a tiny village in Peru one evening, and left just minutes before guerrillas of the Shining Path came in looking for him. He left Peru but has since gone back. I'm sure it was "just fate" that he still lives
Yeah, that reminds me: when a patient recovers, God saved him; when he dies, the doctor killed him.
Your friend lived, simply because it wasn't his time to go yet. That much is certain.
Wonder what a room full of blind men would come up with describing an elephant..
What it(elephant) seemed like or what it is?..
nothing oculd be farther from the truth.
= = =
That assertion, given my broad travels and having lived in many locations with significant numbers of RC’s in my network . . .
that assertion is simply not true.
For that to be true, I’d have had to have ran into very, very, very few RC’s as I described them. The fact is, the majority of more active RC’s were more into Mary than into God or Jesus. And the other largest chunk even than that were nominal RC’s who didn’t seem to have much authentic spirituality at all.
My sample size was not small. My assessments were not shallow.
But aren't you "crossing realms"? :) I have no problem in thinking that spiritual beings do not have mass in our realm, but as for their own realm, who can know? I think of Jesus and His resurrected body. We are told that we are also going to have resurrected bodies. These will take up space, somewhere. It doesn't have to be in our realm.
Magnetism exists. Yet, it occupies no space or takes up no mass. It is an effect on the visible universe.
In grammar school we are taught that nouns are persons, places, things, or ideas. I am only talking about the first three. I think of Magnetism as a description of a relationship between two or more "things". For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think ideas qualify as "things" in existence.
In much the same way, God also effects the visible universe yet takes up no space or mass.
I disagree. Using your own terms, you appear to be saying God is more like an effect rather than a cause, in and of Himself. I contend that a cause requires space, not necessarily in a dimension observable to us.
God is not "in" hell because hell is a state of existence WITHOUT God.
What is the difference between "state of existence" and "place", if "place" can include other dimensions?
But Jesus didn't descend into Hell as we refer to it.
Thanks for the clarification. I've just seen that so many times as being part of the Apostle's Creed.
I presume that you are joking about the soul having mass!
Yes. :) The article I linked to discredits the "science" behind the measurement of the weight of a soul. But I thought the attempt was interesting. :)
My impression is that most of them are less familiar with the Bible based on their own readings than your average Protestant. But their Biblical education is based on bible classes, and liturgical life where weekly readings cover most if not all of the NT and OT.
Spiritual bodies. Like angels. Angels are purley siritual beings, yet they are circumscribed, i.e. finite.
disagree. Using your own terms, you appear to be saying God is more like an effect rather than a cause
God is the cause, and effect, but He is outside (not subject to the laws of) the creation.
Do you think God was surprised by the prayer, that God did not know of the tears and that only after seeing them did He decided to add 15 years?
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." -- Matthew 6:7-8"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Well, I’m quite glad that my sample of RC’s is not normative to yours.
Not sure how else to explain it.
Obviously, this is directly contrary to the letter of the Bible, so it comes down to the perceived nature of true faith and what it entails. I think it is clear that my side sees "faith" as including more "stuff" than your side does. :)
[Continuing (throughout):] Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation.
An excellent case in point. We say this is impossible. God promises that this is impossible, and I'm sure you are aware of the scripture we use in support. A man cannot rightly believe upon God and not do works.
Therefore when He says, "This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God" ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation.
Knowledge alone is irrelevant. Grace through faith is paramount.
Since though he has said here, "He that believes in the Son has eternal life," and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: "He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him";) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. (emphasis added)
Put yourself in my shoes for just one second and see if you don't have to smile. :)
Therefore he did not say, "This by itself is eternal life," nor, "He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life," but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment.
This is not letting a "yes" be a "yes", or a "no" be a "no". This says that without desired qualifications, a contradictory meaning of the plain text is indicated. That makes no sense to me.
Thank you for showing me this passage. I am actually surprised by how much I disagree with it. I know I have been shown others by St. John Chrysostom with which I have much agreement.
... On the one hand, it is no surprise to me that the Spirit lead the councils to a great canon - on the other hand, I would not presume that the canon is the entire recorded revelation.
You certainly impress me as someone who is very serious about her belief in scripture, and as one who does not look at it through any of the standard "lenses". So I would like to ask you: can you think of any spiritual belief that you hold true, as opposed to a musing, which is not "reasonably" supported, in your mind, by scripture? If your answer is "No", then congratulations are in order. You are a member of the Sola Scriptura "club"! :)
No. God foresees all possible scenarios. If you pray, then I give you this. If you don't then I don't. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of making Adam and Eve, if He foreknew which of the many possible scenarios was going to play out. What would be the purpose of being angry at wicked people and drowning the whole lot? Disappointment?
The point I was making was that God does intercede in our lives and He is letting us know that. If He predestined every step then there would be no need for His intervention. Things would play out as God is sitting on the sidelines so to say, and watches the movie play itself out. No, no. This is not a static, passive God. The entire Bible is God's conditional if-then offer.
What is there to explain, Quix? I can assure you that a “normative” Catholic/Orthodox sample believes in God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), with Whom they start and end every prayer.
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die
~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson
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.