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/
Kind of depends on your general health; not just whether you are hungry or not. Fat people are more inclined to gluttony, just as alcoholics are inclined to drunkedness. An alcoholic before he takes his first drink is already disordered,
I like Boettner.
If you desire something you shouldn't have (at that time, in that place, in that way, to that degree, etc.) then whether you pass on it or not, you have a disordered desire. But it is not a sin to have disordered desires; it is a sin to *give in* to disordered desires. Having disordered desires is called concupiscence. According to the Catholic Church neither Adam and Eve (prior to the Fall), or Christ and Mary, had concupisence.
After all, desires are not limited to sexual desires, are they?
Correct.
Where as a protestant would say that I resisted temptation, your "Catholic view" would seem to indicate that I have a serious failing.
You have (in the example you gave) a disordered desire, which is not a sin, because it is not an act of your will. But it is a condition from which you (and I) need to be saved. No one in heaven has concupisence.
-A8
No one "mediates" between God and man except Jesus Christ. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." -- Matthew 6:7-8"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Well, the image in post #183 sure paints Mary preeminent over her Son.
How is she "preeminent"? She supports Christ and points you to Him. He is blessing you and holding the scripture. Exactly what she does and He does in real life.
Catholic ain't a taste.
How does Mary support Christ today?
In many cases today, when a baby is born it causes a tear or rip in the mother's perineum. Typically the doctor will stitch up the tear, although sometimes they simply let it heal on its own, depending on the severity of the tear. This is an example of bodily damage (loss of bodily integrity) being caused in the birth process. Similarly, in a woman whose hymen is intact, giving birth would cause such damage to the hymen. Her physical integrity would be corrupted (which shouldn't be mistaken for spiritual or moral corruption). But Christ the Savior could not violate the physical integrity of His mother, and hence the Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin (in all aspects) even throughout the birth of Christ.
Virginity has both a material and a formal aspect. The formal is more important (which is why St. Augustine argues that virgins who are raped and do not consent, do not lose their virginity, even if they lose their physical integrity), but that does not mean that the material aspect is worthless or insignificant.
-A8
She is His mother today.
-A8
The phrase, "violate the physical integrity of his mother," is legalistic, nonsensical and unScriptural. Christ was born of a woman because He was required to be 100% man and 100% God.
Christ's human birth was accomplished exactly like yours and mine was accomplished. This doesn't demean Him; it fulfills the requirement that God become man in order to pay the ransom for the sins of His elect which could never be satisfied by human recompense.
I saw the film at an early screening. I found nothing that was "unsuitable" for young children. Discussion of the issue of her pregnancy etc would go right over their heads. My 11 year old, on the other hand, would have some questions.
Overall, a good film. We will take the family again on Christmas Eve.
It might be more useful to ask the Blessed Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary to interceed for the illumination of the soul and spirit of the protestants you are contending with on this thread than to argue with them.
Until someone realizes that the Scriptures are not trustworthy if the Church which canonized them is not trustworthy, arguing with them to uphold the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, the utility of prayers for the dead, the reality of the Eucharist, the customs of making the sign of the Cross and facing East in prayer, or a variety of other points Christians had always accepted until the rationalism of the 'Reformation' set the stage for modern disbelief, is quite fruitless.
So long as they hold that the canon of Scripture, divorced from the interpretive context of the Church, is a complete axiom system for all truths about God and Christ, that what can be proved from its text (as shortened by Luther in accordance with the Christ-denying rabbis of Jamnia) by discursive human reason, and only what can be so proved is true, there is no opening by which with mere words their heart and reason can be prised open to the truth. They will deny the authority and teachings of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, the judgement of the Church that the Proto-Evangelium of James is trustworthy on many points of Our Lord's family history, and anything else you present them because they have supplement a wholesome and pious regard for the truth of Scripture with the unwarranted and ultimately heretical assumption of its completeness (despite the closing passage of the Gospel of St. John).
Where does it say that in Scripture? Or are you again making use of the fallacy of the argument from silence?
-A8
That recreation was based on general appearance based on a certain number of skulls. But one cannot argue from the general to the specific. I have a picture of my grandfather and his first cousin, both American indians and almost full bloods. His cousin has the same facial features that I have; my grandfather does not. Yet the general shape of the head is much the same.
Who says that being unmarried is less desirable? The prophets were both married and unmarried, and Elijah, I think, was not.
-A8
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.