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, it does, thank you for posting it. I didn't read every word, but enough to get the gist I think. I would agree that Orthodoxy has a higher regard for scripture than other non-Protestant Christian faiths.
That's part of the faith. I have faith that God preserved His word as He wanted us to know it. Otherwise, as you imply, there would be no point. I don't feel it is warranted to thank men for this, all glory from me goes to God.
It is reasonable to say that we have an historical continuity between the Bible and second century of belief and practice.
That is likely true, but not necessarily to the full degree. Different churches had different practices and we know for sure that churches Paul visited personally were having serious problems.
Do you have a problem with the physical world? Do you believe that God no longer acts through His creation?
No, I believe that God acts through all believers, not just the select, unelected few.
Thank you so much for sharing your testimony! God’s Creation is truly a magnificent work of living art and He is the Master Artist.
The Hindus have sacred scripture, the Muslims have sacred scripture, and so forth. There are books that, interestingly enough, compile all of these books and there is a similarity that runs through them. While the names are different, I find it interesting that the philosophy of loving others runs through them all. With that said, why would you decide to pick Christianity, since you have such doubt on whether we have all the information that we need to determine what the Christians practiced...? You are special pleading - you claim that God guards the contents of the Christian Scriptures, but really, how true is that and what evidence do you have of that? If you discount Christian history, you have tossed aside any claim that Christianity has in its historical truths.
We don't need to discard reason to believe that Christianity is linked to history, real history. We don't need to imagine that there is some ulter-uber-"Christianity" that existed silently and behind the scenes. You are setting the bar WAY higher than historians would when analyzing historical events.
That is likely true, but not necessarily to the full degree. Different churches had different practices and we know for sure that churches Paul visited personally were having serious problems.
And they STILL do. Even parishes in my town have different practices of liturgy. One distributes the Eucharistic Wine, while the other does not... Practices are not dogmatic parts of our faith. Catholicism is universal, but that doesn't mean we give up our diversity. Each culture brings its own practices to the table when accessing what we do and practice as being Catholic. There is an inculturation that takes place - especially now that the Mass is said in the vernacular, rather than Latin. I see this as a confusion between disciplines and practices vs. articles of the faith. We Catholics share ONE faith. But we may practice is differently in the Liturgy or what we emphasize, or our daily practices, or the Church calendar holidays, and so forth.
As to the problems that Paul writes about, that is going to be part of the Incarnate Church until the end of time. The Church is human and divine. This doesn't change the oneness of the faith. The faith is one - it is up to the individual to accept or reject God's Word through the Church. In our sojourning state, we continue to be made into the image and likeness of Christ.
Regards
You responded: No, I believe that God acts through all believers, not just the select, unelected few.
You still have not given me a verse that says that the individual believer is guided by the Spirit to interpret the Scriptures with uncanny accuracy! Remember, God has given His Church apostles, preachers, evangelists and so forth. Everyone is NOT an apostles, preacher, evangelist, and so forth. Is it surprising that God would leave an authoritative body to interpret His Word? He had been doing it for hundreds of years before the Incarnation, and has continued to provide the Church with this for hundreds of years after.
Regards
No. "Totally depraved" would mean that someone can do nothing good at all, even with help, not just partially good and partially evil. This world does not leave us the choice of "absolutely perfect" or "absolute evil". More correctly, the definition should be "partially depraved", since our motives are very rarely totally evil.
The world is not black and white. There is a lot of grayness in this life, even amongst those who claim to be led by the Spirit of God.
Regards
I suppose it's the old "knowledge of vs. experience of" question that can be argued reasonably on both sides.
The wonderful gal who was in language school at the time of my Navy time in Taipei ended up being the first woman area director for SB missions. After more than 30 years of incredibly productive and powerful leadership of the SB’s in the region, she was conscience bound to resign in the face of mission board idiocies vis a vis a double tiered approached to Mainland China that was doomed to be AT BEST exceedingly problematic if not fail outright.
She and all her cohorts were always very Biblically based; loving and intent on serving the Chinese people in the name of Christ. I loved that about them.
I don't believe that the Magisterium is the sole interpretive discerner of truth, and you don't think the Holy Spirit wants a close personal relationship with His children such that He would give such truth to the laity.
FK: "Of course there are people without Bibles who are more sanctified than I am now."
And so you have denied your own thesis. Reading the Bible is not absolutely necessary for "growing in sanctity" Faith comes from HEARING the Gospel, according to Paul. READING it is not a requirement.
I don't think I've said or implied anything like this. I HAVE said that when I read the Bible I am sanctified. I don't think I said it was the only way. Not only is there also oral teaching of what IS in the Bible, but there is also prayer and the ordinances/sacraments which can involve sanctification.
FK: ...since I DO have a Bible I am sanctified when I read it and learn to be more like Him.
Wrong. Reading it, in of itself, does not add to your sanctity. Sanctity is becoming holy, not knowledgeable. I know atheists who are familiar with the Bible.
Then perhaps you do not believe that God's word has any real power in and of itself:
John 17:17 : Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
John 8:51 : I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
Heb 1:3 : The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Of course there are tons more. Reading the Bible sanctifies believers, it is useless to the lost. I was speaking clearly about what it does for ME. I regret IF you believe that immersing yourself in God's written word does not add to your faith.
There it is in plain view. GOD (the Truth) is NOT accessible to the man. God is only partially accessible to man when filtered through other men. This could never be honestly called a personal relationship with God, which the Bible instead teaches. I really have no interest in an impersonal and filtered relationship. I would rather have intimacy with God. Were I to convert, I believe I would be forced to split my actual faith between God and the men of the Magisterium, because I would be dependent on both for salvation and truth.
The "Faith" includes our beliefs in God, man, and the salvation plan in history. The Bible is not part of that. It relates God's plan, but is ITSELF not God's plan of salvation of men. It is an instrument, inspired and inerrant, without question, but it is not part of the "Rule of Faith", that Jesus suffered, died, and rose from the dead for our salvation.
OK, that fully supports my earlier supposition that you do not think that the word of God has real power by itself. It must first go through men who, I suppose, are the ones who activate any power in the word of God, if any. That is consistent with what else I've been told.
Whether you realize it or not, you ALSO call upon the idea that the Church, the community, must be the objective interpreter of what is the norm to be read from the bible for the individual. In time, I hope you will understand where we are coming from.
But I am not compelled to believe based on what other people say I should believe. I have disagreements on some things with other Southern Baptists, and with the majority of Reformers. I don't think the issues are major enough to disassociate with these groups, and I still have the freedom to believe as the Spirit leads me. The Bible is the standard, as opposed to other men, and a large number of my community read the scriptures essentially the same way I do. So, yes I look at what my community says (Bible believing Protestants/Baptists), and if it passes the scriptural test as the Spirit leads me, then I'll buy it.
I am not so sure, FK. As for relying on scriputre alone, or exclusively, I recommend Jaroslav Pelikan's Whose Bible is it? (small inexpensive book loaded with isnghts that will blow your mind).
FK: "I agree with everything in the Creed, with the possible exception of the intent of the Baptism clause:"
Kosta: "Then what do you believe?"
I believe that I've been called a heretic hundreds and hundreds of times, yet I agree with the Creed, so I'm confused. :)
Thanks for your further comments on dogma and doctrine.
I would say that for us, this sounds reasonable, but we're talking about the Apostles and other authors of the Bible. Do you mean that they were no more advanced than us such that they could express the truth perfectly? I would disagree with that since it would obviously diminish the power of God's word.
FK: "God would build in error, just to let men be glorified by correcting it"
But you already believe that God created Adam to fail!
No, I've said several times that it was not the purpose for creating him, although it was a part of God's plan. No error involved. Human history has evolved just as God wanted it to.
No they don't become rational, FK. They are accepted in spite of our inability to understand them. Thus, we accept resurrection of dead people. Is that rational? Our reason rejects it, but we accept it spiritually.
Actually, with the premise of an omnipotent God, my reason is just fine with resurrections and other miracles. I believe these things literally happened and were not Biblical metaphors. They are perfectly reasonable and make perfect sense, given an all-powerful God. To rationally hold otherwise is to deny omnipotence.
Usually behind all these fancy miracles that are hard to believe and impossible to understand, lies a divine message the story is meant to convey. Ignoring the fancy details (the devil is in the details!), you can capture the meaning of that message without resorting to superstition.
Why do you think some of these are superstition, and never really happened? Do you have reason to believe God couldn't perform them, or that He wouldn't perform them? I have none. Does 3 days in the belly of a fish offend your reason? Child's play for an omnipotent God. It is perfectly reasonable.
That's an excellent comparison, Dr. E. Thank you. The transforming of the mind goes beyond omnipotence to explain physical miracles.
FK: "When you say “Church” do you mean to include the people?”
Kolo: "Orthodoxy holds that no proclaimed dogma is in fact dogma and true unless the people give their great AXIOS, which is to say their judgment that it is in fact True, by living out the dogma in their lives. Its not simply the province of hierarchs."
Yes, that's what I was sure was the case. And I consider this to be a different approach from the Latins. I guess I just perceived an RC tinge in Kosta's remark. :)
OK, so to put you and Kolo together, after the Council was done, the laity accepted their discernment. I would say the same laity had accepted the vast majority of it already, before the Council met. Sure, the Spirit led the hierarchs to get all the exact books right, but what does this have to do with accepting their authority as successors of the Apostles? The Spirit leads ALL BELIEVERS, including those of the Council. While this was certainly an important event, it was by no means unique as to whom the Spirit leads.
FK, the Creed is a summary. What differs is the doctrine (teaching) that leads to the summary. The doctrine and dogma are not incompatible. It was your understanding of the doctrine leading to the dogmas of the Creed you claim you agree with that were deemed contrary to what the Church believed and taught everywhere and always.
Well, God created Adam either to fail or to succeed. Given that he failed I suppose God didn't want him to succeed. If everything is according to God's plan, then He created humanity so that it may fall in order that He can rescue some!
I think you have twisted Kolo's words into something he did not intend them to be. An orthodox laity, living an established faith, is different from laity being "led" by the Holy Spirit into accepting the Bible.
If so, then God really did not want Israel to accept His Son as their Savior. It is curious why Gentiles did believe (not all of course) and Jews, save for a small percentage of them, did not.
The refusal of the laity and lower clergy to accept the false re-union of Florence is a documented fact. Your claim that laity somehow had anything to do with acceptance and even makeup of the Christian canon is not.
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.