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/
Dear
"Anyone who says that the Church 'demands' celibacy has already constructed a straw man."
Any easy mistake when one assumes that individuals have a "right" to be a priest.
sitetest
Amen, AG. What bitter and sweet memories.
That's a distinction without a difference. Celibacy is technically the state of being unmarried. Chastity is the virtue which requires the right use of the sexual faculty according to one's state in life.
Nuns are certainly required to be celibate; priests are certainly required to be chaste. (As is everyone else.)
And I'm very sorry about your brother.
If you want to assert that a married minister is a better grief counselor than a single one, so be it. I would suggest that no childless person can ever completely empathize with the pain connected with losing a child; the difference here not being "married versus celibate" but "parents versus the childless".
Dear = Dear adiaireton8
Only to converts who are already married ministers in liturgical Protestant traditions (primarily Episcopal/Anglican), and then only as exceptional accomodation to their circumstances.
Thank you.
Satan certainly sits and laughs when lies are told.
You had to see this minister. He was black and I believe was a widower. His church was nothing to speak of physically. He lived in the black section of town, not too far from where I grew up, and he made his living as a barber. He and his kids were the most beautiful thing to happen during the three days of Patrick's wake. He was so physically moved by the incident that his face showed it undeniably. He was a direct gift from God to and for my Mother.
No, just representative of the human condition in a fallen world. Every denomination, and every Christian, has skeletons in the closet. BTW -- if we stand of the faith of the ecumenical creeds, we are of the same faith.
1 Cor 1:23-25 shows that the "straight face test" is worthless. The Gospel is a stumbling block to the world. The things of God are "foolishness" to men, so 'foolish' that often they do not pass the "straight face test".
That is why none of the fathers used the "straight faced test", though it is the de facto standard of truth in our talk-show driven manner of thinking.
-A8
So do you accept the teaching of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 533) which give Mary the title "perpetual virgin"?
-A8
Apparently, you have a different definition of 'womb.'
Write your book. 8~)
*That is a nasty and false accusation. And it is an OLD accusation.
In The City of God St Augustine took the time to refute such false accusations.
The fact you insist you have some sort of right to make such ugly charges does not mean they are true or representative of Catholicissm just means you have pleaded guilty to thinking the worst of others. That really ain't Christian, brother
Better tell Fr. Geiger to update his review. It's apparently beyond 'problematic'.
It's an artistic representation - a speculation about the reality of the moment. Does it constitute knowing and willful "hatred, reproach or defiance" of God?
From the stated intentions of the film makers, I find it difficult to reach that conclusion. An error? Perhaps. Blasphemy? It doesn't appear that way, if one can believe the stated intentions of the film makers.
But, nevertheless, we do not build temples, and ordain priests, rites, and sacrifices for these same martyrs; for they are not our gods, but their God is our God. Certainly we honor their reliquaries, as the memorials of holy men of God who strove for the truth even to the death of their bodies, that the true religion might be made known, and false and fictitious religions exposed. For if there were some before them who thought that these religions were really false and fictitious, they were afraid to give expression to their convictions. But who ever heard a priest of the faithful, standing at an altar built for the honor and worship of God over the holy body of some martyr, say in the prayers, I offer to thee a sacrifice, O Peter, or O Paul, or O Cyprian? for it is to God that sacrifices are offered at their tombs,--the God who made them both men and martyrs, and associated them with holy angels in celestial honor; and the reason why we pay such honors to their memory is, that by so doing we may both give thanks to the true God for their victories, and, by recalling them afresh to remembrance, may stir ourselves up to imitate them by seeking to obtain like crowns and palms, calling to our help that same God on whom they called. Therefore, whatever honors the religions may pay in the places of the martyrs, they are but honors rendered to their memory,(1) not sacred rites or sacrifices offered to dead men as to gods.
*IF you think Catholic Laity worship Mary, check every single Missal ever produced a single solitary prayer wherein we Catholics offer sacrifice to Mary
sorry, I left (and cite) out
While I do think calling into question the ethnicity of actors is absurd, it's also not likely that a modern Israeli looks much like the Jews of Christ time either.
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.