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/
After all that is why they were born.. to qualify as beneficial spirits.. or NOT..
What makes no sense, FK, is that God makes "choices." Think about it, choice is something we have because we don't know the outcome for certain. So, what posisble "choice" could God make not knowing the outcome? A choice suggests more than one possibility, FK. Does God have to choose between different possiblities or did He make the world exactly as desinged.
Choices are soemthing we make when we decide to lay bathroom tiles, and mount cabinet door knobs. God makes no choices, FK. He just does evetrything right the first time.
The Bible tells us that God wants plenty from us, He wants us to love Him, He wants us to obey Him, He wants us to teach our children, and on and on and on
Where does God say "I want you to love me?"
God defines what rational is, so He is the standard
God is a different essence. His thoughts are not our thouths. He does not define our standard. Our standard is what He gave us. It does in no way compare to His.
I wouldn't say that's why He created Adam
Then why did He?
The Bible specifically tells us that God predestined that Esau would sell his birthright, and so obviously God knew
This is one of those parts of the Bible that cannot possibly be true. There is no reason whatsoever why God would hate Esau unless Esau did something God did not foresee which is impossible.
God has no reason to hate Esau, as Esau did nothing God did not already know before it happened, and by His permission, or because Esau had no choice but to do what he did, and was simply doing God's will.
Don't you think it's a little strange that God would hate Esau for selling his birthright and not Adam for ruining the whole Creation? Or Judas for selling out Christ? Or Pontius Pilate for turning Him over to the Jews when he couldhave pardoned Him?
But, of course, in your theology all this happened because God "wanted" it. If He wanted it and He gets what He wants, than there is no reason whatsoever for Him to hate anyone, good or evil, for "doing His will," especially Esau!
And while you are at it, explain to me how can Love hate?
Kosta: According to your theology God created Esau in order to hate him!
FK: No, that was not the reason for creating
Oh? That's the only reason God would have for hating Esau.
The reason God made Esau was to use him in the furtherance of God's plan
Which was for Esau to sell his birthright! Did Esau have a choice of not doing that in your theology? Or course not! So, he was (pre)destined to do what God wanted in His plan, which involved Esau selling his birthright, not because hge wanted to but because God did, right? Was there any other reason Esau had on this earth? If not, then God created Esau with a specific purpose to sell his birthright for "futherance of [His] plan." Which is fine, but doesn't explain why He hated the man.
Judas, and the rest did not do what they did out of obedience to God, so they do not get credit for being obedient
But in your theology there can be no disobedience to God!? Remember, God is always in control whether we obey or disobey. Either way we can only do His will, right? Otherwise God couldn't get what He wants, right?
Can you imagine if Esau decided not to sell his birthright!? Or if Judas said to himself, "30 pieaces of silver, I don't need that..."? Or if Adam spanked Eve and chased away the Serpent instead of eating the fruit?!?
God used [Judas and the rest] by removing Himself from them to that degree necessary to guarantee that His plan would be accomplished exactly as designed.
Where they under grace? Are you suggesting they had indwelling Spirit? But be it as you make things up, by "removing" Himself from them, He did not just "allow" things to happen, but created conditions under which they will happen for certain, so the determining factors are not the peons running around on earth but God. Where is the guilt of the peons in all this?
And in your theology God loves the vast majority of people so much that He stands aside and does nothing to protect them while they hurl themselves off a cliff to their doom
God does nothing? You mean as in spoon-feeding them? Are you saying "it's not faaaaair?" :)
If I treated my own children the same way your God treats His, I would be put in prison. :)
But God's ways are not your ways in case you didn't notice. The Bible clearly tells you that God does not compel. he is not dealing with "children" but with rational human beings that he equipped with reason.
When confronted with this question(paraphrased) by the Apostles.. Jesus took a little child and said, UNLESS you become one of THESE you will have no part in "heaven".. Rational thinking adults do not qualify for heaven.. It takes faith.. the faith of a child.. The currency of the economy of God is faith.. not reason..
No matter how much you think you know, God is not impressed.. Your faith and what you have faith in(or not) is all important.. The less you know the more faith is required.. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is still a mistake.. for good vs. evil, ugly vs. beautiful, debits vs. credits, right vs. wrong, mean vs. nice, heretic vs. orthodox, rich vs. poor, and much more.. are judgment calls from that tree..
We are left with faith for only God can rightly discern these things absolutely..
We must put up with each other through faith..
The flesh is weak but the spirit is buoyant..
That is an awesome post, full of loving wisdom. I am so thankful that you pinged me! Hugs and kisses!
There is clearly SOME use for judgment calls, at least clearly to me. (but then, I see a lot of stuff that isn't there ...) But I guess what freaks me out about myself when I get hooked and about a lot of FR religious discussion is that the judgment calls about opinions and critical distinctions morph into judgment of persons, which is not my department, praise God.
(I think I will start the practice of praying before I write on these threads and praying again before I hit 'post'.)
(yeah, that'll work!)
Since Dante is one of my favorites, since he takes up and lives what I think is Plato's idea that erotic love (not in the sexy sense, in the sense of longing to possess and be possessed by beauty) can be a prelude to spiritual longing and to charity, I have often proposed this metaphor:
Theology is like reading an anatomy text book. Life in Christ is like making love, and like being married in other respects sometimes. (You want me to take out the garbage? Now? I just sat down! Darn it! Oh well, Okay - mumble grumble.). Clearly SOME basic knowledge of anatomy is essential to making love -- but really, not all that much. And if the relationship is good, chances are that one will learn all the anatomy one really needs to know.
But to confuse studying an anatomy text with making love or to think that one really was quite the lover on account of the amount of time on had spent with Gray's Anatomy would be silly, pathetic, and, uh, unrewarding.
The [S]pirit is buoyant
Lovely! I'll take that to Mass with me today.
What makes no sense, FK, is that God makes “choices.”
= = =
Not so fast hotshot.
God makes clear in Scripture that He made and makes choices.
There may be plenty of mystery associated with that—but it’s plain Scripture.
You have taken my quote out of context to give me your 5-cents' worth.
Yes, it does take the faith of a child to 'qualify' for heaven, but that's not what FK and I were talking about.
Forest Keeper made a statement that in my theology God loves people but lets them jump off a cliff, and added that if he (FK) treated his children like that, he would go to jail. To which I responded that God does not deal with 'children' but rational adults.
To which you respond with the faith of children requirement for heaven...we were talking about God dealing with us, not what we need to 'qualify' for heaven, hello?!
Oh, sure, Q, He stands there with earth models and ponders "Should I use this one or that one...decisions, decisions" and He must have had an awful lot (like infinite number) of man models to choose from...three legged, two-headed...pink eyed, green hair, chicken-footted...etc.
And all the outcomes He had to "choose" from when it came to events that were to unfold..."Should I make earth first and then the light...should I make earth this big, or that big, and what if I Adam doesn't eat the fruit...etc., etc. etc. LOL!!!
God does not have to choose between this and that. God never wonders what He should choose. Nor does God have a choice imposed on Him, nor does He not know what to do. God making "choices" is an oxymoron, an anthropomorphism, or stuffing God into our little human mindset box, which is what happens with literalist bible-reading.
You and FK are putting up with each other quite nicely, as I am with you two and others.. is that LOVE?...
SO THEN, GOD CANNOT have preferences?.. preferring one thing in one situation and another, in another.. Basicallly GOD is a machine?.. You know like the chinese god.. that they pray to with mechanistic prayer on prayer wheels?.. A Robotic God..
So God cannot have qualia, desire, hopes, and preferrences?..
DAMN!!.. how can he be my friend?..
NOTE: Some things are literal and some things are metaphor, wisdom is in knowing the difference.. But you are correct.. some things biblically are metaphor.. maybe even most things.. but not all..
True in the Body of Christ not all are the liver, arm, skin, kidneys, colon, eyes, tongue, ears, finger tips, gender organs, hypothalamus, blood, bone, or especially THE HEAD..
But all the parts humbly need each others portion.. I like your metaphor..
This issue (and not crunching Muslims) is what Benedict XVI's Regensburg address was about. There's some good stuff in Fides et Ratio which I ought to re-read.
This again is where I get my concern about the problem of theological language from. To say that God "wants", is, at least in the history of the word 'want', to say nothing other than that God lacks something. Can we say that? I would offer instead to say "God wills".
But then I read Hosea ...
Or Jeremiah who says that God does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. Is there a suggestion, at least in the plain meaning of the words, that God does stuff unwillingly? We can explain this away but it seems to me to power of the line is precisely in the inner conflict it expresses, so explaining it away just guts the verse and what Jeremiah is saying.
Theologically it seems right to say that God is or at least lives in uncreated bliss. But in His ultimate and perfect self-revelation He appears (at least for a while) as a man being tortured to death. A trivial, but no less valid for that, response to this might be to say that sometimes to say the truth about God we have to say the opposite of the truth!
Now, at the risk of being sexist, I'd like to suggest that while this is hard to accept at first, any guy who has tried to understand a woman has found himself tied up in similar knots.
I hasten to add that this is a reflection about language and human reason, not about God (or women).
I think.
So very, very true! Beautiful post, dearest hosepipe! Thank you so much!
I do not think ANY Christian teacher (me being one) should be concerned about "bible knowledge" in of itself, but rather whether this knowledge of God is put to practice in one's life or not. THAT is why we teach. The barbarians of Gaul whom Irenaeus speaks of were living out there faith in love, WITHOUT reading the Bible. I would imagine that this was very common up to the time of the printing press. I read that the literacy rate during the first few hundred years of the common era in the Western Roman Empire was less than 10%. Bible reading was out of the question for many people, even if they were so inclined to read it.
While we obtain knowledge from others we should always check them out in the scriptures.
I understand your desire to ensure that the Bible is adhered to when people teach us. I agree with it in a manner of speaking. However, when we place our own readings of the Bible above the community's, then we have moved into "private interpretation" of the Scriptures. There is very little precedent for such things. Rather than saying we should check them against the Bible, it would be more correct to "check them against the Traditions given, both oral AND written", as Paul wrote the Thessalonians. We have been taught, both orally and in written form. We have a particular idea of what is right and what is wrong. We compare teachings to this paradigm that we hold, given to the entire community. Thus, the apostles tell their charges to look to the body of teachings they had been given.
Other religions also base their beliefs on what their church teaches. Surprisingly - they all think they are correct. No one should be blindly led by any church, or any man, ever.
Is this to state that our conscience be our guide? St Aquinas agrees with you. He said that if our conscience tells us that Jesus did not rise from the dead, we shouldn't believe it. We must adhere to our conscience - while opening searching for the truth. We cannot blindly believe something because someone else told us so. As long as we are open to the truth, we should examine teachings, using our reason WITH our faith. The latter does not dispense of the former. They are wedded. So if that is what you mean, I agree with you. We should subject the "truth" to some test. That includes the Bible itself, if we are to use it as a reference point later in our search for truth.
Regards
Putting it into practice in one's life is, as you say, the most important factor. To receive truth and not adhere to it is a much greater error than to have never heard truth.
Rather than saying we should check them against the Bible, it would be more correct to "check them against the Traditions given, both oral AND written", as Paul wrote the Thessalonians.
Jo kus, I can't agree with you here. The traditions of man can be very dangerous and change over time. God's Word does not. God sent His Son and His prophets to teach us. We, of course, listen to our teachers and those we respect and we learn from them. God judges those teachers first and then us. We will not be able to say, but he taught me that was a religious thing to do. He wants us to know His Word.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God
15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, "Men and brethern, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
That is what can happen if you don't read the Word of God. People love to have their "ears tickled".
Mark 4:24 And He said unto them, "Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
Father warns us in Jeremiah 14 about listening to others, of following their traditions:
10...Thus have they loved to wander they have not refrained their feet, therefore the Lord doth not accept them; He will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins."
12.When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence."
These people thought they were doing the right thing. They were fasting and making offerings to the Lord - apparently just playing church, but He will not hear them. They are following traditions of man, not God and the only way to know is to know His Word.
14.Then the Lord said unto me, "The prophets prophesy lies in My name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them; they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
There are many that will come in His name, disguised as men of God. We are to know them by their fruits but if we don't know the Word how will we know they are false teachers?
Is this to state that our conscience be our guide? St Aquinas agrees with you. He said that if our conscience tells us that Jesus did not rise from the dead, we shouldn't believe it. We must adhere to our conscience - while opening searching for the truth.
His Word tells us Jesus rose from the dead. If one's conscience told us otherwise that person is not of God. I do not think we should listen to our conscience if His Word tells us - it makes the final ruling. Without access to His Word I believe our conscience is then all we would be able to follow. I believe that there is a barometer for goodness in all of us.
........Ping
Your construction on Scriptural, spiritual reality vis a vis God is not mine.
Perhaps a words study of all the Scriptures about God choosing would be fruitful.
I happen to believe that God chose
to use the word
CHOOSE/CHOSE
IN SCRIPTURE
rather than some words like . . .
forced, bottled, zapped, striped, pointed, furry, polka-dotted, bumpy, cracked, grainy, mushy, smelly, hard, brittle . . .
BECAUSE
as ALMIGHTY GOD
He DECIDED that
“choose” & “chose”
fit HIS MEANING FAR BETTER.
Now, I suppose you can give
ALMIGHTY GOD
vocabulary lessons, if you feel up to the challenge.
But I’d recommend stopping by 7/11 for a dozen cases of cheekiness, first.
Jo kus, I can't agree with you here. The traditions of man can be very dangerous and change over time. God's Word does not. God sent His Son and His prophets to teach us.
Ping,
I'm not saying you're wrong (not now, anyway). I'm trying to say why this rolls right off the back of some Catholics and Orthodox, okay?
We would say not all traditions are traditions of men. SOME traditions are, but, we think, some traditions are not.
So I agree that the "traditions of man" are dangerous and untrustworthy."
In tis connection I think the phrase "word of God" in Acts 13:44 and 15:7 does NOT mean Scripture. In fact, if someone heard Peter, and then went home and told his bed-ridden next-door neighbor what Peter had said, that there would have been what WE call "tradition".
My second alleged point is:
I also think that the Jehovah's Witnesses and some of the Jewish Christian groups are enough to show that reading the Bible does not confer immunity from Itchy Ear Syndrome. It's a widespread disease.
=========
In other news:
His Word tells us Jesus rose from the dead. If one's conscience told us otherwise that person is not of God. I do not think we should listen to our conscience if His Word tells us - it makes the final ruling.
Aquinas does not say that following one's conscience is a guarantee of doing right. He says, as I recall, that NOT following your conscience is a guarantee of doing wrong, either flat out wrong or doing the right thing for the wrong reason. So yes, it is wrong to believe that IHS did not rise from the dead. But, if it were possible to believe it against one's conscience, that would be wrong too. In other words, obedience to conscience is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for doing the right thing.
Mad Dawg, any tradition that is of God is wonderful. My point would be how would we know if we weren't able to verify it? If it was a tradition, even of man, that glorifies God then it too is wonderful. However, if that tradition contradicts God's Word it shouldn't be part of our life.
In this connection I think the phrase "word of God" in Acts 13:44 and 15:7 does NOT mean Scripture. In fact, if someone heard Peter, and then went home and told his bed-ridden next-door neighbor what Peter had said, that there would have been what WE call "tradition".
That's a great point and I agree with it but wouldn't they still be relaying His Word? If that is what you call tradition then it is teaching God's Word. However, if he went to his neighbor and told them what Peter had said and added an extra little twist that would change His Word a problem arises. I understand that in the relaying one's own interpretation may become part of it. That interpretation may be correct or may be in error. It's wonderful that in today's world many of us have access to His word and we are able to at least attempt to see if that person is correct or if we're being asked to send in our life savings to support a charlatan on television so that God will love us and answer our prayers.
I also think that the Jehovah's Witnesses and some of the Jewish Christian groups are enough to show that reading the Bible does not confer immunity from Itchy Ear Syndrome. It's a widespread disease.
I think all religions have this syndrome (please don't think I'm talking about Catholics and Orthodox - I am not). It's just part of our human nature. Some of us may be misled and some may not. As I see it, the only thing we can do, as a child of God, is ask for His guidance and "search the scriptures".
He says, as I recall, that NOT following your conscience is a guarantee of doing wrong, either flat out wrong or doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
Thank you for the clarification - I did wonder.
........Ping
Total depravity does NOT mean that we are all born axe-murderers. :) It has nothing to do with that idea. It just means that because of the Fall, we are all born into sin and are slaves to it. Also, that we cannot choose God on our own. We cannot serve two masters. While our only nature is sinful we cannot come to God. God must deal with that sinful nature first. "Knowledge of good and evil" is a separate subject from the nature we are born with.
Before I was saved I had a knowledge that killing was evil, but that did not make me a murderer. Knowledge does not automatically lead to action. However, at that time I was still a lost sinner and doomed to hell because of my nature. Nature DOES automatically lead to action.
Thank you for the background on how wine was used.
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.