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/
Not if you look at it in their manner.
A free moral agent has all the permission and revelation necessary to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that they will.
Irresistible Grace means that God unfailingly draws some as the only way that any could come. They cannot come of their own, because they're too absorbed in sin to want anything else. Sort of like druggies who'll die rather than quit their drug. It's not like they don't have a choice.
Perseverence of the saints is nothing more than the belief that those who've truly believed will hang in there and not give that faith up. It is not of themselves, but is itself based on God's gracious enlightenment & empowering. Yet, they are still free moral agents. Having been enlightened to the good, they keep pursuing it. Having the choice of a T-Bone or a mud-pie, they consistently choose to eat T-Bones.
No. Refining means removing of impurifications. One refines gold in fire and it comes out purer. Augustine was very astute, Particularly for his time concerning the "Calvinist" doctrines. Yet, Augustine didn't really have the assurance that comes from realizing that it is all of God. If your desire is towards God and your trust in the atoning blood of Christ alone for your salvation, then you are of His elect. NOTHING can separate you from the love of God, not death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor height nor depth - NOTHING. For we are MORE THAN CONQUERORS through Him who loved us.
Again D-Fendr It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Not about us! That's what Calvinism is about. I hope he elected everyone! I have no merit in myself to gain his approval for election. But if he did not, I know God is holy. God is just. God is sovereign. And I live in thanksgiving towards Him for His unspeakable gift.
Yet again I agree with you, and Augustine, on pieces.
It is the whole you derive from the pieces that should cause you to shudder.
Exactly.
Druggies have a choice. You have a choice. I have a choice.
The rest, respectfully, is tortured spin.
I put "refinement" in quotes for this reason.
"God is just."
Not in Calvinism. I'm sorry, it's impossible to reasonably build a just - or merciful - God from the Calvinist system.
You just don't understand it as I do D-fendr. And you know what. That's okay. It really is. I don't think any worse of you for it, for this is NOT an easy doctrine. Xzins, who I don't believe is what one would call a Calvinist (he may correct me at some point on that one), does understand where we are coming from. And, he and I get along quite well. You and I disagree on a number of issues, but we can still dialogue and get along well.
This doctrine is strong meat. It isn't meant to go down like milk. You have to chew on it a while before you can swallow it. But once you do, trust me, your view of God will not be one as hateful but one that is sweet and so worthy of your praise.
What would be just in your eyes?
I want to say again, this is not about you. It's cool you can intellectually hold the Calvinist view and at the same time see God as just, merciful, loving and compassionate.
I just think that is in spite of Calvin, not a logical result of his system.
Just would be something that has meaning. Whatever God's justice - or mercy - is, there is meaning. This existence matters.
But justice and mercy are not the same. What would be JUST for mankind?
That's my point. They are not the same.
Each second, I have choices. What I choose matters.
Calvin saw him the same way:
If it be objected, that God is everywhere called “a Father,” and that this title is more appropriate to him, I reply, that no figures of speech can describe God’s extraordinary affection towards us; for it is infinite and various; so that, if all that can be said or imagined about love were brought together into one, yet it would be surpassed by the greatness of the love of God. By no metaphor, therefore, can his incomparable goodness be described.- John Calvin
Friend. You aren't answering the question. In your mind, what would be JUSTICE for mankind?
Sorry, that is so out of square with TULIP.
Again, it's nice if someone can hold both in their mind, but the system disagrees.
Not really, D-fendr. It is compatible. You just can't see it at this point.
It's not a matter of logic; it is what the system teaches. It teaches that God is not the Author of Sin, and it tells you how that is not so.
Their Westminster Confession says:
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Now, I can use whatever logic I want, but if it ignores the statements of their own system, then it is faulty to charge them with a fault that is not the result of the system they have actually established.
I understand that in Canadian Football there are 12 men on the field. Therefore, American Football doesn't have enough men on the field. (I can deduce all kinds of things from that about American Football, but none of it would be valid. American football must be seen in light of its own system.)
There is no such thing as justice for mankind for me.
First, I'm not the judge. Second, what kind of judge passes sentence on a whole species?
Even God sent a rainbow apology.
In Calvinism, what is the difference between the eternally damned and the eternally 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.