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/
Opening up the can of antisemitism worms can be fraught with perilous missteps.
From the following link...
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/hitlers.htm
"After the publication of Hitler's Pope, the Vatican went on a virtual crusade to discredit John Cornwell; the Internet is flooded with attacks on him. In an effort to present Cornwell's side of the argument, Emperor's Clothes has posted the abridged pre-publication version of Hitler's Pope, which appeared in 1999 in the magazine, Vanity Fair. The unabridged book is of course much richer; below I have posted links to online stores where you can buy it, new and used, and as an e-book." -- Jared Israel
"The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."
Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, February 28, 1944
"It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."
Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, April 7, 1944
"What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism."
Israel Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome
And with that, D-fendr, our discussion is ended. I'll leave it to others to explode the myth should the need arise.
Do not ping me again!
:)
I basically agree with all these statements, on an individual basis, with the possible exception of being able to know what the Apostles were "keenly aware of" in their writings. However, the focus on Christ is indisputable.
That said, what you are telling me, it seems, is that the total focus of the Apostle writers was solely on Christ, however, the total focus of the next generation of disciple writers was NOT. Were they bad students? :) Isn't the goal of every disciple to truly parrot his "master"? Wasn't that the rabbinical tradition they were all aware of? Some of the early writers apparently did not think so. Their writings differ with their additions. Why didn't the early writers just follow their Apostle masters and focus solely on Christ?
I mean, you said it yourself. The Apostles focused solely on Christ. Now look at how much focus has been put on Mary through the ages. What does this say? It says to me that the teachings of the Apostles, the ones important enough to have been written for all time, have been watered down.
There was simply no point or room to speak of Mary before the world embraced Christ, as it would distract and deter [spreading the Gospel of Christ] ...
No point or room to speak of Mary??? :) The edition of the version of the Bible I use has 1,979 pages. Given the type-size, etc., and given every Marian doctrine I can possibly think of, I would guess that ALL of them could have been covered IN FULL, within the space of no more than 2 or 3 pages, such that there would be zero dispute from Protestants on these issues. If Mary truly merited the attention she is given in the Apostolic faiths, then I think God could have seen to it that she got the equivalent of 2 more pages. I don't think the message of Christ would have suffered all that much, IMO. We both know that the scriptures do not have to be long-winded to make highly significant points (unlike me :)
In the first 1,000 years of the Church, the only dogma regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos, the God-bearer. That is the only dogma regarding Mary in the Orthodox Church to this day.
Now wait a minute. :) I can't keep straight whose dogmas were pronounced when, but isn't it a matter of the Orthodox Church's Tradition that Mary was sinless and ever-virgin? If so, then isn't Tradition an authority of the Church just like scripture is? It works out the same, doesn't it? Could a good Orthodox member in communion with the Church today believe that Mary sinned and, separately :), had relations with her husband after Incarnate Christ was born? I would have thought "no".
She is our highest Saint and role model.
You're right, I never considered before that some Saints are higher than others. Who would be your lowest Saint and least preferred role model? :)
I think that is an excellent question, HD. Inasmuch as Baptism is imputed righteousness, yes. The rest of it is her choice.
How would you compare this to your understanding of the Reformed view of imputed righteousness and justification? Do you draw the imputed/infused righteousness distinction? Did Mary have ANY advantage over anyone else who has ever been baptized in whether she would later sin?
Well, you may bounce that off your fellow Calvinsits, Dr. Eckleburg and Harley D, and others who have on numerous occasions made it very clear that free will is just something "silly" the Church believes in. Apparently not all Calvinsits believe/profess the same thing.
Calvinism will tell you that God made Satan for that purpose. Calvinism believes God deliberately set up traps for Adam and Eve to fall, knowing they will be tempted and fall.
Calvinism believes that's how God willed it and that's how it happened, Blogger. No free will is allowed to come between man and God. or as your fellow Calvinists keep reminding us Orthodox and Catholics – "God is in charge."
If I write a novel, who is the creator of the characters and what they do, and how the book ends, if not the author? certainly, the charaters in that book bear no blame! As I said, the whole concept of sin (and redemption, prayer and so on) in Calvinism falls flat on its face.
Of course, the Church believes that just as God allows evil to exist for a greater good, so He also allows us independent and free will to reject it.
What's the point of listing all those confessions when all they represent are traditions of men? Every Protestant believes exactly what he or she wants to believe, not what some confession of faith says. They cherry-pick from a buffet of views and opinions and make their own plate so to say. Cozy. Easy. Man-made.
Well, guys, what say you? When Adam and Eve were created, did God give them free will which was then corrupted by the fall through the noetic effects of sin? Or have I completely misunderstood?
Kosta, God IS in charge. If God did not ordain that He would permit the fall (permit the fall is in the actual language of most of these documents), then you have a God who is NOT Sovereign, who is a reactionary, and whom you can not trust to make sure everything turns out okay because who knows, maybe man will screw this up too.
If we truly believed that we would be out of sync with Calvin, the Westminster Confession, and Luther. Man has a choice; it's just that he always choose to do evil. It's like putting a cookie and broccoli in front of a three year old and asking him to choose one.
Meant to ping you to above.
There seems to be a lot of that on this forum.
23? God left it up to the Church? Does this mean that the people of the Church had already decided that the 4 Gospels were OK, but had no idea about the other books? Are you saying that the 4 Gospels were the only written works being consistently taught in the vast majority of true Christian churches until the official Church Canon?
Now, of course, when YOU say "Church" you and I "could" actually be much closer than we think. :) I don't know. However, the subject was whether God preserves His own word, or whether He delegated that authority away from Himself to men. We both know where we stand. When I read your above, it "sounded" like you were referring to a Council of men, rather than to the Church.
Even though you portray this Spirit-guided process, the canon was not finalized even after the end of the 4th century (the authenticity of the Book of Revelation of John having been questioned as late as the 8th century in the East), the issue of Apocryphal books, the Epistle of Barnabas (included in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest surviving complete Christian Canon), and so on.
OK, these are all very good reasons not to tie oneself to the declaration of a Council. :) Instead, I've seen good cases made here on FR that the people of God's Church had it pretty much right before any Council. As you go on to note, there are also some issues with various translations and the like. This mirrors how the Holy Spirit leads me individually, one step at a time, according to His good pleasure, and with the most important issues being the most clear and undisputed, e.g. the most important points of the Gospels. Better "original" texts could well be sitting in a cave out there and the Holy Spirit will reveal them to all of us in His good time. If any of them are discovered in our lifetimes, a 5-spot says they help my side more. LOL!
What strikes me however about your post is that you are suggesting that the Church was Spirit-guided in its canonization of the Bible, because he wanted to preserve the Church, yet when it comes to the Church organization (papacy was well established by the time the Bible was canonized) you dismiss it as man-made.
I'll do you one better. Not only do I think that the Church was Spirit-led in its "canonization" of the Bible, I also think that the men of the Council were Spirit-led in getting it right in agreeing with the Church. I don't think any of it happened by accident. :)
In the same vein, neither do I think that any man, or any group of hierarchs are infallible in their responses to the Spirit's leadings from, say, adulthood on (or whatever). [Again, it "sounds" like you are only talking about hierarchs, not the people of the Church.] The Spirit will accomplish EXACTLY what the Spirit wills in terms of these issues. On something as important as the Canon, it makes sense to me that the Spirit would take whatever measures were necessary to make sure that it was done absolutely correctly. I do not translate that into a license for infallibility from beforehand or afterward.
I am not aware of the scriptural teaching that in any group of fallible hierarchs, that a majority vote always equals the will of Christ. I thought there were even examples in Orthodoxy, where there was a vote of some kind by hierarchs that was rejected by the people in practice. That nullified the vote.
Are you a sho' 'nuff Doctor in the academic sense of the word? If you are, you have the habits and skills to check this stuff out, and you probably know better than to fall for the first piece of anti-Catholic bazz-fazz which comes down the pike. AND knowing the devious ways of the human heart, you should probably know that when an allegation or hypothesis presents itself which leads one to respond, "See THERE? I KNEW, I just KNEW that I was right about [fill in blank]!" THAT's the time to count your change and double check your figures.
A lot of the anti-semitism charges are in the same neighborhood as people getting their underthings all in a wad over Wshsington and Jefferson owning slaves. But my impression is that most of the charges of Vatican anti-semitism around WWII come from people who decided that the filthy papists were, as we all know, filthy papists - gasp! - and then went looking for evidence.
It's not unlike people who decide that we Papists are stupid, easily led, supersititious, and credulous fools (but at the same time and in the same respect unbelievably devious, crafty, wily, and efficient, and masterful in the perversion of logic) who think that a chemical change happens in the host and the chalice at every Mass. (That's my way of asking, "Don't you and I have a pending issue?")
It reminds me of my C of E god-mother, a graduate of Oxford, who said that Catholics were ignorant and superstitious, somehow forgetting John Cardinal Newman.
In what way?
The Greek for flesh and carnal have the same root, sarx. "Will of the flesh" is to be carnally minded.
It makes sense that you would say that the Church wasn't ready to hear those things yet because they had to learn about Christ first. It also makes sense that holding those beliefs, one would hate the concept of sola scriptura.
You are subtly avoiding the word "free," HD. There is a difference between a choice and a free choice. Giving a child a cooke and a broccli is not a choice; it's a given. Might as well just give him a cookie! Especially if you KNOW what he will choose in advance because you wrote the book, and you decided that he will "choose" the cookie.
But doing that to the child is also tempting him and baiting him. Because the child cannot reason, he can be tricked, fooled and trapped. What happend in the Garden of Eden was nothing like that. Adam and Eve had a full faculty of reason. God's instructions were clear. They were not tricked into taking a cookie.
If anything God gave Adam and Eve a chance to repent; instead, Adam chose to blame God for giving him that woman who tempted him, and Eve blamed the Serpent God permitted in the Garden. What was lacking in both was humility to repent and ask for forgiveness. Instead, they blamed either God or the devil for their choice, just as we do to this day!
Your example is no different than giving a dog a piece of meant and an onion. Guess which one will the dog go for? That's because dogs are dogs. Their nature is carnivorous. We, on the other hand, have a choice; we are not defined solely by our carnal nature. It comes with reason.
God wanted us to be rational creatures, capable of making right decisions. God's blessings are just that: blessings. And what God gives is good. What we do with out talents is up to us; we can either multiply them for the benefit of others or we can use them for evil ends. Either way, it is our decision, with God's permission and blessing.
That's why children are not allowed to choose freely. Their reason is simply not developed enough to do that. So, we must make a decision for them until they are reasonable enough (accroding to our human standards) to make autonomous decisions.
God did not create man to choose evil. Man chose evil freely and God permitted it. God decided that He will not force our choice, for a forced choice is no choice as forced love is no love.
That is an oxymoron. When we follow the flesh we are not rational. There is no "mind" in flesh. We are held accountable because of our reason, and not because of our flesh.
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.