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/
They are not held back. But they will not choose.
Why "allow them to see the consequences?" They can't do anything about it.
This is truly a cruel demonstration.
But you did?
You have no right to call God cruel. He gave you the answer in His word. Read it.
Romans 9
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
"If I say it all boils down to synergism and monergism they look at their monitors like deers staring at headlights, drooling all over their keyboards."
Succinctly, exactly and precisely put! Throw in the influence of the medieval Roman Church on Protestantism ad its reaction to it and there you have the root of the difference.Too bad about the drooling part, though. You know I'd never mean to get you in trouble! :)
"But, once more, in the Orthodox teaching canonical is that which complies with the canons and the canons express the truth of the church. We must openly reject the "romanizing" theory that something is true because some infallible authority has decreed that it is true. In the Orthodox Church truth itself is the supreme authority and criterion."
You know, I don't usually like what Fr, Schmemann, of blessed memory, had to say, he had some very Western influences on him, but this is spot on!
"Doesn't sound very Catholic to me. In fact it explains how the Orthodox have a more loosely defined hierarchy than the Catholics. One that I happen to believe is more biblically based."
Yup!
Only because God first quickened me, drew me, and gave me the faith to believe.
I'm not. Just the opposite. I'm saying I can not see him otherwise in your theology.
Could you have chosen otherwise?
Wrong question. It isn't relevant whether I could have or couldn't have. The fact is I wouldn't have chosen differently.
John 6: 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Yet, this is not due to myself or my own insight. For even faith is a gift of the Spirit of God.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith
I have nothing to boast in save Christ Jesus and Him crucified.
Give it a try anyway.
It really looks like you're trying very hard define something as a choice where there is no choice possible. For you or for the elect.
God is the only one who chooses in this part, right?
I see Him as sovereign, just, and righteous. I do not see that He is obligated to be fair. In fact, as I pointed out, we don't really want fair. He is not cruel. He is sovereign and just and shows mercy to whom He will and whom He will He hardeneth. And yet, Man is without excuse. There is a tension there. No doubt. But to see God as other than sovereign, as obligated to do anything for humanity, is to strip Him of His deity.
With helpless robots, this is just cruel. How can this view not be ruled by a capricious God?
I'm really sorry, but I cannot see how I can view it any differently. You have no choice, they have no choice - or, rather you would say, they would not do any differently, you would not do any differently. Through nothing you can do or think or feel or wish, you don't suffer their eternally damned fate - which is done as an example that you don't need anyway.
This goes round and round into meaninglessness existence.
If Scripture says nobody CAN come unless the Father draws them and if Scripture says that all whom the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ and will not be cast out - the impetus is all on God in our salvation.
By the same token, God does not cause others to go to Hell. He puts up with evil for a time and then will destroy evil and make all things new.
Man is responsible and without excuse (Romans 1); He is willfully bound by sin. He will not come unless the Father draws Him (in spite of nobody holding Him back) and all whom the Father draws will come to Him and He will not cast any of them out.
Man chooses evil and is damned. He isn't free in the way that you mean as unfettered. He is bound, willingly, with sin. The truth is around him. He knows the truth and turns from God.
Others choose God after He makes them alive (instead of dead in trespasses and sins), gives them faith, and draws them to Himself.
One goes to Hell because it's his desire. The other goes to heaven because they have truly been made free and given a new desire oriented towards God.
Who is a robot?
God changes the want to and then makes us truly free - like we were in the beginning. The others are where they desire to be. Saddam didn't go to Hell because God didn't choose Him. Saddam went to Hell because He loved His evil and rejected what light God sent Him.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Did God send his light to you differently than to the non-elect? Or was there something different in your response to the same light?
Surely you want to re-think this statement.
Where is it wrong?
No contradiction.
Saddam
Romans 1
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen
In my salvation, God made Myself who was dead in my sin alive to His Word. He drew me to Him. And, He gifted me with faith to believe.
D-fender, you do not seem to understand the Holiness or sovereignty of God and somehow seem to want to obligate God to behavior in a way that you deem acceptable towards His creatures. You look at it from the lost person's point of view and say that God can not possibly hold Him guilty when He didn't give that person the same opportunities as everyone else. You think that man somehow deserves mercy. And you consider God cruel if he doesn't give him grace and mercy. But you see, grace is completely unmerited and man is completely undeserving. You do not realize how bad your own sin was and how filthy it made you before God (or myself before God). God's holiness and purity is so much more than ours could ever be. The fact that He puts up with any of us is testimony to His love and mercy not cruelty.
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.