Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

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/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,481-2,5002,501-2,5202,521-2,540 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: kosta50
Surely, Protestants also believe that there was a time when the Incarnate Christ did not exist.

There was never a time when Christ did not exist and don't call me Shirely.

2,501 posted on 12/20/2006 2:03:40 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2484 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Calvin was a heretic and a liar. (And those were his good points).

I 'spose you missed my post where I broke the back of sola scriptura on the rack of absurdity... here it is enjoy...

Hmm...I guess the Church has taught error for more'n 2000 years and it has been dead wrong about Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

*Ok, I'm gonna try my hand at this sola scriptura stuff. Unguided by the Church who wrote and canonised the New Testament, I will take a look at this Scripture and explain its obvious meaing...

And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.

*Ok, it is obvious what Scripture is telling us. Other than a Father, who refers to a young woman as "daughter?" We read in the Scriptures the woman had an issue of blood for twelves years. IOW, she prolly just started mensturating. "Twelve" is, obviously a reference to when she began her period, because "for" can also mean "since" accrd to some scholars.

Prolly, Jesus had a daughter out of wedlock and she was having a tough time with mensturation etc. but she didn't want to embarass Him publicly by identifying Him as her Father, and thereby jeopardising His Ministry, so she just touched His garment...

And, young women were supposd to stay outsiedde the camp when mensturating etc

Hey, that was easy. And fun, and iconoclastic...

What? You say that means that Jesus was a sinner? Well, whatever. It is there in Scripture and trying to deny the obvious is just foolish.

Besides, scholars of today know FAR more than the poorly educated, superstitious, women-hating Church back then... (name one of them who had a College Degree?..or Access to Strong's Dictionary)

Anyways,so what would it matter if Jesus had a daughter? It doesn't specifically say He fathered a child out of wedlock anyways. Prolly, He had maried (Magadalen?) secretly and exchanged vows quietly...In any event, Fathering a daughter was quite common for religious men of his age - even if he, or they, had sinned or not. Children were valuable and they were useful to care for you when you got old..

Besides, whether He was married or not, Jesus had a Daughter, obviously, He identifed her as such and yet He still died for our sins and God still accepted His Sacrifice and we are still Saved.

What is the big deal?

Let's just unite around that essential and agree to disagree about all of these nettlesome, and, face-it, inconsequential inessentials. They only separate us and make for long arguements...

2,185 posted on 12/19/2006 11:40:02 AM PST by bornacatholic

2,502 posted on 12/20/2006 2:08:53 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2464 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; kosta50
I think Kosta meant there was a time when the Incarnation was not, ie before Jesus's conception. The second person of the Trinity existed, but the Incarnation happened at a specific time.
2,503 posted on 12/20/2006 2:12:21 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2501 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
So, the trinity was not a trinity until it became a trinty in time and there was no fall or original sin...

Well, you certainly have points for originality

2,504 posted on 12/20/2006 2:23:17 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2485 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; Dr. Eckleburg
And this is why a good concordance can help in the study of the bible. Knowing that Jesus had no daughter from the scriptures, then we conclude she was one of the other definitions.

Definition

1) a daughter of God

2)acceptable to God, rejoicing in God's peculiar care and protection

3)with the name of a place, city, or region denotes collectively all its inhabitants and citizens

4)a female descendant

2,505 posted on 12/20/2006 2:24:39 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2502 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; Dr. Eckleburg

I have never heard of such a goofy interpretation of the scriptures in my entire life. The scary thing though is someone who didn't read and seek to understand the bible for themselves might believe it. Hence we get something like the DaVinci code leading febrile minds astray.


2,506 posted on 12/20/2006 2:31:05 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2502 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
*Your response is just question begguing and arguing outside of scripture.

My answer to you is Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (King James Version) 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

*How do you know what you read is suposed to be in the new testament. The new testament has no list of books that ought be included.

2 Peter 3 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

*Who told you what Paul wrote was scripture? Scripture doesn't. Who said what the First Pope was writing about was included in scripture. There is no evidence there in scripture. You are just making unscriptual assumptions.

16As also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction.

*Ahem...

1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

*What? THe old or the new testament?

Per these verses, one sees that 1)All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righeteousness.

Profitable does not mean the only source. And it does not say what is to be included and excluded form scripture. You can tahnk tghe Catholic Church for deciding what would and wouldn't be included in scripture. The Catholic Church preceeded the New Tsetament.

2)Per Peter, Paul's letters were Scripture.

*Nope. It doesn't identify any particular one - so, again, you are just assuming what we decided would be in scripture is scripture

3)Per Paul, the gospels which contain the account of Christ's rising from the dead were Scripture.

*It does not say that at all....

Considering that the account of the Bereans is getting towards the END of Paul's ministry and the New Testament books circulated widely in the early church,

*It does not say that in scripture

it is not unfathomable that they were also looking at New Testament Scripture when comparing what Paul was verbally telling them in person.

*SCripture does not sdaythat

You have NO Scripture to indicate that they weren't. Likely, they were.

*THAT is sola scriptura? That is like believing the Govt can do whateverr is not prohibited them in the Constitution. Just the opposite is the truth.

10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Scripture does not say they read the new testament

Good Lord, man. THe Scripture says Faith comes by HEARING.Did the bereans have talking books?

Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world

They standard set by the Bereans is that everything is to be tested by Scripture.

*So, the old testament is your sole rule of Faith?

They didn't wait for some church council to interpret it for them. They took the advice of Jesus and "search(ed) the Scriptures).

*Fine. You are stuck with the olfd testament

They didn't have to wait for a church bureaucracy to do anything, for as John said in 1 John. Speaking to the "little children", John said "1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.

*Really? Then why did Jesus establish a Church if it was unnecesary?

But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

*But, they didn't.

Of course, some still require teaching because they refuse to dig into the word and find out for themselves.

*Then, you are disputing your own Rule of Faith.

They are either too lazy or have been duped into thinking they can not understand it on their own. As the writer of Hebrews said: Hebrews 5 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil

*So, ylur own Sole Rule of Faith contradcits itself.

Thank you for illustrating sola scriptura is non-sensical and self-refuting

2,507 posted on 12/20/2006 2:43:14 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2459 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

The Holy Spirit bears witness to my spirit that Jesus is speaking figuratively there. Since all truth is God's truth, I can claim that. In order to confirm that it was indeed the Spirit bearing witness and helping me to understand that verse, I compare it with other verses. Are there any references in Scripture to Jesus' having a literal daughter? No. Therefore, I am able to deduce, by the God-given mind that I have, that he is speaking of a spiritual/figurative daughter of God. Being Sola Scriptura does not entail interpreting every phrase in the Bible literally. We are aware that the Bible speaks figuratively and poetically at times. The context determines those times. After all, when God says he will hide us in the shadow of His wings, He is not saying that he is a big bird.


2,508 posted on 12/20/2006 2:45:11 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2502 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
What book of the Bible is the Concordance? Who wrote it? The book of Concordance is not in my Bible - and we wrote the New Testament so, I think I would have all the books..

Besides, Jesus said Daughter.

What young women, who are not your daughters, do you refer to as "daughter?"

2,509 posted on 12/20/2006 2:46:17 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2505 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
I have never heard of... goofy interpretation... someone who didn't read and seek to understand the bible for themselves might believe it

ummm, that's who said it.

2,510 posted on 12/20/2006 2:46:35 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2506 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
You may not of heard of it but that is because you are one who does not appear to trust in the actual words of the Bible.

Look, did Jesus call that young woman Daughter or not?

Why would He call a young woman Daaughter if He had not fathered a child?

Come on...

2,511 posted on 12/20/2006 2:48:50 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2506 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

"There is simply no scripture that I'm aware of initiating a "no touch" rule with regard to a person, or any part of a person. (Insert joke here. :)"

A US Senator buddy of mine once told me that Hillary Clinton had a "no look" rule after she was first elected to the Senate...but I don't think it had anything to do with holiness!


2,512 posted on 12/20/2006 2:51:20 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2437 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; Dr. Eckleburg

I'm not living in an Oriental society where it's a cultural thing to address one another in these endearing terms of respect. I do however, have Chinese friends who call every male older than themselves "uncle". It's interesting that you like this interpretation, even if for just the sake of argument, but probably will take the exact oposite tack when trying to explain the bible calling someone "Jesus' brother."


2,513 posted on 12/20/2006 2:52:10 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2509 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
Scripture does no such thing. You are making claims for yourself that are clearly unscriptural.

On the one hand you claim that "brothers" must mean that Mary had other children when it is clear "brothers" has a different meaning than what you attach to it. And, we have the witness of Church, Ecumenical Councils,and Tradition to back that up.

On the other hand, when Jesus calls a young woman Daughter you say He had no children.

That makes no sense.

I have a Daughter I am a Father. Can I both have a daughter and not be a Father? It appears I can in sola sciptura world

It appears that the real meaning of scripture is simply what you say it is. And there is no scriptual authority for your ownself that you can appeal to. You aint mentioned in the Bible.

Now, why don't you show me where anyone else in the Bible called a young woman Daughter daughter and then maybe we would have something objective to go on. Otherwise, all we got is your personal opinons which, as we have illlustrated repeatedly, are wildly opposed to orthodoxy throughout the ages.

2,514 posted on 12/20/2006 3:00:06 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2508 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

No, God was always the Holy Trinity. The Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of the Persons of the Trinity being co-eternal, of the begottenness of the Son and procession of the Spirit from the Father as being eternal.

You are skating very close to the formula of the condemned heretic Arius, 'there was when the Son was not'.


2,515 posted on 12/20/2006 3:05:57 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2361 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

"Marlowe, I think you just got called a heretic. With finesse, of course, but the meaning is clear.

"It happens to me all the time.""

Well, yes, but you're a well meaning, irenic sort of heretic who has enrolled in COE and is beginning to read The Fathers, so its OK. :)


2,516 posted on 12/20/2006 3:06:39 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2473 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
How many women did Jesus call Daughter?

Why didnt he call the woman at the well Daughter

Why didn't He call Jairus's daughter Daughter. He called her Maid

Do you think it just a coincidence or a formality He called that young woman Daughter

Boy, it appears sola scriptura aint for you

2,517 posted on 12/20/2006 3:07:45 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2513 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; Dr. Eckleburg
Now, why don't you show me where anyone else in the Bible called a young woman Daughter daughter and then

So when the prophets called Israel collectively, the Daughter of Zion, did they father each of them? Or give birth to them? Or what exactly?

2,518 posted on 12/20/2006 3:08:56 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2514 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
You think when Jesus spoke directly to His Daughter He was propheysing? I don't read any prophecy there in my Bible
2,519 posted on 12/20/2006 3:14:09 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2518 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; Dr. Eckleburg
I wasn't with Him, so I can't say.

. The woman at the well was not a Daughter of Israel.

Why not call her "Maid"? The meaning is just akin to "little girl", perfectly normal.

No, fanciful, personal interpretations of the bible with no basis whatsoever, is not for me. That is why if I had a teacher like you, I would search the scriptures to see if what you say is true, and then I would flee your church forthwith.

2,520 posted on 12/20/2006 3:16:41 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2517 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,481-2,5002,501-2,5202,521-2,540 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson