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/
Yes, I have no doubt that SAUL thought he was doing the Lord's work. But, he was LOST at that time, unsaved, damned. My main point was that Saul was wrong. He "should have known" that murdering was wrong, but he didn't see it that way until our Lord Jesus opened his eyes. (So to speak :) So, I said "he knew" when I should have said "he should have known". :) IOW, not only was he wrong about Christianity, but he was also wrong about what he thought was Judaism.
Yes and AMEN, Harley. It's possible that I may have been in that place longer than you. :) It just seems like the inbred human instinct is to focus on self and individual control. The truth is the opposite of what we think, and I am so much more grateful now for what God did for me, because I realize that I had no chance of understanding it on my own.
Reasonable enough point.
I don't think anybody much in those days "knew" that killing members of a heretical sect was wrong. Look at what goes on among Muslims today in that part of the world.
Yes, with God's patient hammering into our heads, we have finally doped it out and reached the "Duh!" moment, but it took a long time for even some humans to get that idea.
SO yeah, if Paul had had a heart attack instead of a vision on the road to Damascus, I guess he'd be in the warm place now.
BUT, I still want to say that being in the state of sin is not JUST evil everywhere. It's more like everything out of joint, out of sync.
By grace (IMHO) Paul was open to God. God was working on him. How trickily God works ("with the crooked You are wily") to convert us without frying our brains! Paul wanted to do God's will (was 180 degrees out of phase on that ...), and, I think knew somehow that he was doing a lousy job of being a son of the Covenant. Maybe even his desperation at his own inescapable sinfulness contributed to the anger and hostility he felt toward us.
Then, I can see a scrupulous thinker wondering,"Suppose I'm just really, really wrong," or thinking, "My sinfulness is so wretched that only an innocent man could pay the price of it ... uh, wait a minute! Oh. My. God."
I'm suggesting, I guess, that God works slowly and carefully, and that He had His eye on Paul and finally finally got him to take the bait, and rejoicing reeled him in.
Experimental psychology and even common sense tell us that we can all be driven to violence.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. God protects all non axe-murderers from being that, even if they are ultimately lost. :)
FK: "It just means that because of the Fall, we are all born into sin."
We are? How so? Is the body by itself sinful? Or is our soul sinful? And if so, is it not God who gives us the soul? At which point does it become sinful? It could not be in the act of procreation in marriage because marriage is an institution of God; procreation in marriage is not a sinful act.
This goes right back to the C.S. Lewis quote doesn't it? :) I don't really consider the body to be an independent entity capable of individual sin on its own. So, I would say that the soul is sinful as we own it when born. God does give us the soul as tempered by His Justice. There is nothing "unfair" about this since God has no duty to give us "unblemished" souls.
As to "when" the soul becomes sinful, I would say that it was contemplated that way from before the foundations when God first "knew" us. So, all people are born with a default of going to Hell, without Divine intervention. God saves His children, and the rest are lost.
No one is born into sin or with sin. Sin is something we must commit to be accountable, just as you believe that you must accept Christ in order to be "saved" (which makes it incumbent upon your act of "acceptance," talk about man-mediated salvation).
How do you read Paul when he lays out what I'm saying in no uncertain language? It is clear that Paul and I are of a single mind on this. That is good enough for me. :)
When you talk about it being "incumbent" on us Reformers to accept Christ, you are projecting your own requirements upon us. You're mixing apples and oranges. To us, God ordained who would accept from the foundations, so from His POV, the acceptance is pro forma. For us, as we experience it of course, it is a big deal. Praise be to God. Man has nothing to do with the saving, he just gets the beautiful moment of experiencing it.
Original sin is a status, or like a default. It just means that all things being equal we are headed for Hell without God's saving grace. Besides being just plain true, this understanding helps to convince the prospect of his NEED for God. If a prospect asked you why he needs God based on the Orthodox view of original sin, I honestly have no idea what you would say. I know that you know that you need God for salvation/theosis but I don't know how convincing a case one of you could make to someone who is unsure if he even needs God at all.
An alcohol or drug-addicted infant is not guilty for its addiction, but is born with a devastating consequence of its mother's sin of alcohol or drug abuse. In anything, that infant is a victim of sin, as we all are born victims of sin.
I don't look at it as a matter of guilt, just a matter of fact. We are born as slaves to sin. That's the bad news. However, God has this in store for His children, etc.
FK: "Also, that we cannot choose God on our own."
Certainly we can, once God knocks on our hearts. How can you choose something or miss something until you know it exists?!? But once you know, you can choose.
This is certainly one of our biggest disagreements in terms of importance. What do you mean by "know it exists"? To me it takes a specific act of God before that even happens. Once God touches an elect so that he "knows", then he chooses for Christ. God never fails in this, once He touches the choice is always the same.
So, God gives us sinful souls? That's amazing! If this is what the Reformed believe, it is the best kept secret because I never heard or read any reformed Christians take ownership of such a statement.
How do you read Paul when he lays out what I'm saying in no uncertain language?
Everybody and his brother reads +Paul differently! If God chose you from "before foundations" then it's not incumbent on you accepting Christ; you are not accepting Christ; you are simply being told that Christ really accepted you -- that's what your theology teaches.
If a prospect asked you why he needs God based on the Orthodox view of original sin, I honestly have no idea what you would say. I know that you know that you need God for salvation/theosis but I don't know how convincing a case one of you could make to someone who is unsure if he even needs God at all.
About as convincing as someone telling you that your are "elect" and Joe next to you is not! You have no proof one way or another, self-delusion notwithstanding.
As to what an Orthodox would tell you why one needs God, the answer would be (without any proof likewise): so that you may be healed, since the disease that you have inherited (no fault of your own) from your ancestral parents will kill you.
Once you know, the choice is yours. Like I said, one cannot miss and wish for something he or she doesn't know. But once you know you are spiritually ill, you must choose whether to seek a spiritual physician or not. People who are diagnosed with life threatening conditions usually react with denial. This is no different.
God never fails in this, once He touches the choice is always the same
God doesn't fail, but we do, even those who received grace. Even they can be said to "have fallen from grace" [Gal 5:4]
Actually, I look at this not so much as God gives us "sinful souls"; rather that our soul nature are incapable of doing good on its own. A biblical (and most obvious) example of this Satan himself; a being created by God, perfect in every aspect, yet destined to fall from grace with God's knowledge. Left to our own devices, our souls will fall by nature.
but satan wasn’t a human, he wasnt made in God’s image.
So, God created the souls of men as obligate failures? And we blame Adam and Eve?
A biblical (and most obvious) example of this Satan himself; a being created by God, perfect in every aspect, yet destined to fall from grace with God's knowledge. Left to our own devices, our souls will fall by nature -- HD
If you are referring to the biblical passage about being created "perfect in every respect" that is not about Satan (many Christians try to tie it with Satan, but it is not about Satan at all but a pagan king who thought of himself as god; in those days, the Jews had no problem with Satan).
As regards angels, obviously many of them can do good without falling, so that must mean that God intentionally created one third of them to fail, as He did with all the people!
And, to add a little twist to this charade, He would have no mercy on the fallen angels who were simply created defective intentionally, but He would have mercy on some men who were also created intentionally as failures and the "surplus" of failed humanity is to be discarded like garbage -- all for the "glory" of God. What a wonderful religion Reformed Christianity is!
Left to our own devices, our souls will fall by nature -- HD
That is true but only because our will was corruopted by sin because of disobedience of Adam and Eve. But, of course, "disobedience" and "sin" cannot make sense unless they are soemhow tied to our free will and not a pre-recorded string of choices we are obligated to make.
We get our life from our parents the way life creates life in all living beings, and with it we get the defect of the will they inherited from theirs, all the way back to Adam and Eve.
but satan wasn’t a human, he wasnt made in God’s image -- kawaii, #15,468
K, angels were created in the image of God as well (in the Torah they are referrefed to as the Sons of God, including the satan, who is treated as one of God's loyal messengers), but they have no autonomy, having been created as God's obligate servants.
Unlike man, the angels were not given dominion, but were created to "assist" God (which is a curious construct, since God is everywhere all the time and really doesn't need any assistants!).
I have more affinity for more of your points than the Calvinists
& thx 4 the pings.
Mostly it’s a wearying topic 2 me.
I wish they'd make up their minds, because you can't have God predestining people to fail and hold them responsible for their failure.
Probably some Calvinists do, in the sense that God is the cause of all things. I don't like to use that type of language because I think it can be too easily misunderstood or misinterpreted to say that we believe in an evil God. Look at the abuse our side has taken over the misinterpretation of "sin boldly". :)
Dr. E, as far as God not tempting, it's in the Bible; it says so on numerous occasions.
Testing is different than tempting because of the expectations of the actor. When God tests, He expects success. When satan tempts he expects failure.
The same with Adam and Eve. They could have said no (oh, goodness, free will! impossible!). God did not force them to say yes (what a weakling!). Of course that is not possible in the bizzarro control-freak Reformed theology, where evil is not evil because it is from God, as if evil were a creation of God and not absence of God!
I agree that God did not force the sin, however, God did let the serpent into His Garden knowing full well what was going to happen. I think that we underestimate the enemy if we believe that we, by ourselves, with our inner goodness and free will can outmatch him. Ergo, I don't think that Eve and Adam had a fighting chance.
Yes, :). I always like how Roger Hedgecock calls himself a "Recovering lawyer".
I'd bet there are two ways to get the RC Church to carefully and dogmatically define the role of Scripture. (1)Get a bunch of people to say it has NO role whatsoever; or (2) have a groundswell of people asking for a particular definition and then have a few miracles associated with the groundswell.
I've never thought about it before but those ideas sound like they could work. :)
I want to "see God more clearly, follow Him more nearly, love Him more dearly." I don't think even about "being saved", as such.
Now you're going all Godspell on me. :)
Maybe I ought to set aside the apologetic endeavor altogether, but I do so enjoy a friendly, shared inquiry into these matters.
Nah, a Christian faith always needs someone who knows what he's talking about, and that's you. I have greatly appreciated my conversations with all the good Catholics here.
Jesus is central. Seeing Him is the hope -- "and we shall never hope in vain." (te deum)
That's always good to hear, from any Christian.
Thanks very much for all of your comments.
There is some both/and-ness in the whole area of predestination/Armenianism.
However, I think many of the Calvinists hereon take things to an extreme virtually out of the box.
There are mysteries vis a vis GOD’s Omicience etc. but I’m confident we can take His Word at face value.
and,
While His perspective on fairness is not ours; His ways are higher than ours . . .
He is NOT LESS fair than we are.
AS Vicktor Frankel said . . .
THERE IS NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY
and
also, it’s clear—imho—THERE IS NO RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT FREEDOM—AUTHENTIC FREEDOM TO CHOOSE AND FACE THE AUTHENTIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHOICES.
Yes, that's not bad at all. I also agree with the following explanation by Arthur C. Custance, a 20th century author. He was a "science isn't inconsistent with faith" guy, and I believe he was Anglican:
"Total Depravity is not intended to signify that unregenerate man is wholly evil in everything he does, but rather that nothing he does is ever wholly good. In so far as motive determines the moral character and spiritual significance of an act, every deed has something of sinfulness about it because man's will is fatally corrupted by his fallen nature. Not all motives are equally sinful, but no motive is wholly pure. Hence, from a moral and spiritual point of view, human activity is always poisoned as to its motive, to a greater or lesser extent. This fundamental impurity of motive is the reason for saying that man is totally depraved. This depravity is reflected in man's entire impotence towards any spiritual good; in this respect unregenerate man is not merely sick but dead. Consequently the salvation of man is altogether a work of God, initiated and carried through by Him without the help of man, man being able neither effectively to resist nor to assist the elective purposes of God directed towards his salvation."
This appears to be at least consistent with what we actually see in the real world, since we know that lost people DO things that are normally considered "good".
And as to Free Will, I think it's helpful to return to the phenomena once in a while and to realize that the notion is not a slam dunk. I simply cannot think that Luther and Calvin are, uh, totally depraved -- or significantly more depraved than I am, if left to my own devices. So I don't see Calvin is obviously perverted in his account of things. Maybe wrong, but not setting out to do evil.
Right, and we remember that total depravity only applies to unregenerate man. After regeneration, we still suffer from a remnant of the old man, but it is no longer total depravity.
There is no question of choice. We embrace the answer and try to understand it and to work it out and live with it because our chance of choosing between this futile effort and that equally futile effort is swallowed up in the freedom of the truth.
Yes, that's an excellent way to look at it. I agree.
Yu have no idea how good I feel reading that.
I'm really glad you've gotten to know SB folk who are among the good guys. You're right that for us there is a high emphasis on scripture.
Richard of Chichester (whoever he was) said it first.
I actually think Godspell is a wonderful work. Archbishop Ramsey of Canterbury said that "Jesus Christ Superstar" managed to convey the Gospel in spite of itself, but Godspell achieved what it set out to do.
My favorite teacher, may he rest in peace, said,"It's wonderful! All that "Q' material set to music and made delightful!"
That’s always good to hear, from any Christian.
One day, in my hopes, we will look at one another during a breather in the heavenly chorus, and laugh at our disagreements, and thank the Almighty that He was not as we thought but as He indeed is, and that His splendour and the joy He shares is inexhaustible for ten thousand times ten thousand years.
It's when I forget that that I get all grouchy.
I disagree. The concept of sinlessness is only ever applied to Jesus, not Noah or Job or Mary or anyone else. The language is different.
FK: "What tells you the comparison line is drawn based on whether one has familiarity with Jesus?"
Because the Centurion stands apart on that basis only: the rest ask for hands-on healing, as they would a doctor; the centurion clearly has faith in the suparnaturality of Jesus' ability, not having met Him and not having witnessed Cana, walking on water, etc.
But these have NOTHING to do with each other. The centurion also had faith perhaps being left-handed, or tall, or fat, or dyslexic, or being literate. All are equally worthless distinctions that Jesus ALSO doesn't make. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to "in all of Israel". This is an amazing absence of logic to me. :)
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.