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/
*I'm dogmatic and right. You're dogmatic and wrong.
Why do people give me these long articles?
*Penance for your material heresies...:)
Love you, brother
Well, Steve Ray is a convert from evanglelical protestantism so I though you'd appreciate his pov
What makes you see yourself as the final and infallible interpreter of the Scripture? Why should I choose your personal interpretation over the wisdom and Apoastolic succession of 2,000 years of unbroken Church teaching?
If you want a personal religion, that is your prerogative. Start your own "church" if you want. But don't confuse it with what has been Christianity for two millennia.
Ahhh....penance.
"If you ha' no penny, a ha'penny will do. If you have no ha'penny, then God bless you...."
Reminds me of my grandson (2 yrs old) who was fascinated with "pennies", but graduated to "money." He refers to all of it as "ney" (as in pen"ny" and mo"ney")
Then he decided he really liked candy, and it got elevated to "ney" status. Properly pronounced cand"ney."
I'm sure there are cultures someplace that use candney as a medium of exchange.
I could do worse than trading in chocolate covered cherries.
(And you are correct: this is entirely off the subject...and only tangentially related to penance. :>)
But that's only from the point of view that there MUST be a pope. Why do you bestow this requirement upon us, but then exempt yourselves from the same requirement? If we really wanted to use that term, then as near as I can figure, the RCC pope is in the form of one man. The Orthodox "pope" is in the form of The Church. The Reformed Christian "pope" is in the form of the scriptures. For discussion purposes, I could go that far.
The difference between Moses parting the sea and Mary being born sinless is that the bible mentions the first and not the others.
That should be of interest to most, and to many of us scripture is THE critical issue.
I'm sure you can put our lens on for just a moment and "see" through our eyes, can't you?
The Church used Septuagint all along ewven when the Church was still made up of observant Jews. There was never "acceptance" of the Old Testament; it was part of the Church all along.
Who cares what the rabbinical scholas concluded at Jamnia! Among other things, the rabbis there ordered all the Jews to "curse the name of Jesus of Nazareth." I wonder if that is still part of their religious routine.
We don't pay our spokesperson nearly enough, IMO.
In effect they claim to be inspired. So, the proper thing to ask is not "do you consider yourself a Pope" but "do you consdier yourself to be an Apostle?"
And that makes Calvinism equal to Arianism.
The KJV fabricators rewrote Malachias 1, among many other passages, because it didn't fit with their ideology.
Other books of the Bible they just heaved into the dustbin of history.
What you mean about loving Scripture might not mean what others mean :)
You mean loving all of scripture, Maybe they mean loving all scripture which they have reritten or not thrown away...
No kidding! It's like being in a time machine!
One such heretic actually has. He called it the Koran. Dictated, word-by-word by none other than God Himself to Mohammad, or so he says. Imagine that! And where did he get his ideas from? Arians (actually an Arian monk)! Do you see the connection here?
BTW, Calvinsits and Muslims share the denial of free will. A coincidence or similar mindset?
The KJV fabricators rewrote Malachias 1, among many other passages, because it didn't fit with their ideology
I called KJV a Protestant-orchestrated scriptural fraud and was told by P-Marlowe not to ping him on this thread again. I guess truth hurts. The fact is KJV has changed an awful lot of things to make it acceptable to the Geneva-worshipping Calvinsits. It's a man-made "bible" with a Protestant twist, imo.
Oh, without a doubt! LCMS and LCWS and many Methodists and traditional Anglicans would never venture into those waters, imo.
Because your attempts at preserving God's eternal pre-existence is made at the price of denying Jesus' divinity by insisting that "the holy thing" that was born was a mere man.
Wrong! "What" was born was God united with humanity, but still the pre-existing God. Or do you deny that Mary gave birth to God?
In your attemnpts to make sense of a divine paradox in our eyes, what comes out of the protestant side is denying Christ's divinity and over-emphasizing Christ's humanity. Typical Age of Reason error.
LOL!!! Can I ask for a raise? :O)
This, like generally Protestant translations, favors Protestant theology. My original says "I know not man", a statement akin to "I do not smoke".
I don't have any problem with your translation. It states a current condition without regard to the future. All smokers at one time could say "I do not smoke".
There is nothing in the annunciation to suggest the event is to take place before the marriage, and common sense would dictate that the it refers to the regular offspring of the marriage.
We have this:
Luke 2:5 : He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
We also have this:
Matt 1:18 : This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Doesn't this seem clear that they were not married yet? There is also the clear implication that at some point they did "come together" in marriage. They already were together in betrothal, so what does that leave?
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.