Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

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/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: kosta50
Everyone presumed the Child was +Joseph's and was no different than any other human child, including the way He was born,

Actually, people back then could count to nine. "Son of Mary" is, in a patriarchal culture, another way of saying "father unknown." A taint that dogged our Lord wherever the family moved.

561 posted on 12/07/2006 6:44:29 AM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I hear ya...And believing the bible is superstition...Hocus Pocus...

And they justify this mockery by making the absurd claim that their religious organization wrote the scripture and they apparently can change it, corrupt it, or ignore it at will...


562 posted on 12/07/2006 6:53:35 AM PST by Iscool (Anybody tired??? I have a friend who says "Come unto me, and I'll give you rest"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Iscool; blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg
I'm about to the point of adding this: "hymen-preserving birth experience" to the the list.

I suppose it would be in bad taste to refer to it as "The immaculate hymen".

Yeah, I suppose it would.

563 posted on 12/07/2006 6:58:53 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley

Where did you get that last sentence from. By working backwards from your conclusion?


564 posted on 12/07/2006 7:04:43 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Iscool; blue-duncan; Buggman

Actually, I don't think "immaculate hymen" is derogatory or anything. I does sort of sum it up.

I had no idea that was out there.

And now we're getting this "Jesus wasn't conceived" idea that's coming up. I don't know where that's gonna go. It might just be semantics, but who knows. Maybe a "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster" will jump out of the dark and say, "Haaah! Didn't know about me, either, didja?"


565 posted on 12/07/2006 7:05:35 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

It just kinda jumped out at me one day while I was reading through the gospel account of our Lord's reception in Nazareth -- "Isn't this Mary's son, the carpenter?" Why was Jesus identified by His relationship with Mary, when just about everyone else in the Bible is identified by the name of his father? I'm assuming you don't start a marriage by running off to spend three months with your cousin (Elizabeth). If I'm not assuming too much (hey, I'm not infallible!) -- then the earliest Jesus could have arrived would have been six months after the wedding. There's a folk saying, "The first baby can come at any time. All the rest take nine months." Still, everyone knows how long gestation normally takes.


566 posted on 12/07/2006 7:20:02 AM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: annalex; HarleyD; bornacatholic; blue-duncan
They pointed out that inferences can also be drawn their way. This is why, among other things, Sola Scriptura is a dangerous superstition. (emphasis added)

Alright. What Biblical inferences draw your way to show that Mary was a perpetual virgin? A few times BD has given a list of scriptures showing that Jesus had siblings. What scriptures do you offer to show that He did not? It would seem that your best possible argument, one in which every single verse was interpreted exactly as you needed, would be that the Bible is silent on the matter. Nothing that is actually in the Bible really helps you here. The Marian doctrines are (mostly) completely extra-scriptural. That is why our side is the only one that actually HAS Biblical inferences. All your side can do is interpret some verses out of meaningful existence, and then rely solely on extra-scriptural text for the "facts".

Here, Sola Scriptura makes a strong case against Mary's perpetual virginity. If your refutation was based on other scripture, then you would have a case. But it does not appear to be. It appears that it is only based on re-interpreting the "positive" argument in scripture out of existence, and then using only extra-scriptural text to support an alternative "positive" argument. I would imagine that an unbiased observer would find this very unpersuasive if a premise was that scripture was an equal authority. Sola Scriptura is only dangerous to the RCC. :)

567 posted on 12/07/2006 7:22:56 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
When I ask my friend for prayer, my head isn't bowed and my mind is not cleared and focused only on God. At that moment I am having a conversation with my human friend. That is completely different.

If you think of the Saints as being alive (which they are in Heaven), then it is exactly like talking to a friend--and one who has the advantage of standing in the presence of Almighty God. Using your logic, you're absolutely wasting your time asking your earthly friends to pray for you as well. The time spent asking other Christians on earth to pray for you, again using your logic, could be better spent speaking directly to God.

If I decided to spend the next 5 minutes in prayer, I would spend all of it with my Master only, I would NOT spend the whole time talking to some dead guy I've never met, asking him to put in a good word for me with God.

I think the crux of the difference is that some of you view the Saints as "a bunch of dead guys." Catholics view them as very much alive and available to them.
568 posted on 12/07/2006 7:33:04 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
Conceive, the word used for Mary in Luke 1:31 is the same word used for Mary's cousin Elizabeth in Luke 1:24, 36 and of Rebecca in Rom. 9:10.

That's very interesting. Not that I ever thought otherwise... I'm going to look at that when I get home.

569 posted on 12/07/2006 7:34:17 AM PST by scripter ("If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Iscool; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg

We can also add:

Jesus was not the seed of Mary so He can't be the seed prophecied to Abraham or to Eve in Gen. 3:15.

Jesus was not conceived so Mary is not the virgin (young girl) prophecied in Isaiah.

The birth was miraculous, not natural, so as to exempt Mary from the impurities caused by the fall.

They worship the same god that Islam does.

Words can mean anything you want them to like, "brother", "brethren", "sister", "grace", "all","any", etc.

Tradition, no matter when started, always interprets scripture when it is necessary to protect dogma.

The Magisterium can trump the plain meaning of scripture when necessary.


570 posted on 12/07/2006 7:46:24 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Iscool; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg
"I'm about to the point of adding this: "hymen-preserving birth experience" to the the list."
_______________________________

It certainly is an odd discussion point.

If it was not a body that was born (fully human, fully GOD) than what was nailed to the cross? In that Hellenistic culture and time there were all kinds of spirits that appeared and disappeared.
571 posted on 12/07/2006 7:50:27 AM PST by wmfights (Romans 8:37-39)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Wallace T.; Kolokotronis; kosta50
Transubstantiation is taught by the Catholic Church and is treated as compatible with the Orthodox teaching, and as far as I know with all other Churches (pre-Chalcedon) that have a valid apostolic succession. This is therefore a part of the teaching as commanded by Christ in his Great Commission to the apostles, which is a scriptural fact.

I could VERY well be wrong about this, but I have a vague memory from the L&E thread that the Orthodox don't agree with "something" about Transubstantiation, but I can't remember what it is.

572 posted on 12/07/2006 8:21:59 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; wmfights; xzins; HarleyD; TomSmedley; Forest Keeper; AlbionGirl; 1000 silverlings; ...
This entire discussion reveals a tangible fear of Christ's humanity.

And in doing so, the Trinity is diminished and a human being, Mary, is elevated.

"I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them." -- Isaiah 48:5

573 posted on 12/07/2006 9:17:55 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I'm glad I was on this thread. I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me.


574 posted on 12/07/2006 9:26:28 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; xzins; HarleyD; TomSmedley; Forest Keeper; AlbionGirl; ...

"This entire discussion reveals a tangible fear of Christ's humanity."
_____________________________

Amen!

Our Lord and Saviour could have come as the emporer of Rome if he wanted. Instead he came to us through a humble, poor, peasant woman. He grew up in a rural, poor, backwater of the Roman Empire and he transformed us and the world.

The truth is a million times more powerful than fairy tales.


575 posted on 12/07/2006 9:56:48 AM PST by wmfights (Romans 8:37-39)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Justification should be at the top of your list. It is why the Reformation was waged (and is still being waged.)

SOLA FIDE:
THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
Dr. J. I. Packer

"The confession of divine justification touches man's life at its heart, at the point of its relationship to God. It defines the preaching of the Church, the existence and progress of the life of faith, the root of human security, and man's perspective for the future."1 So wrote G. C. Berkouwer of the doctrine of justification by faith set forth by Paul and reapprehended with decisive clarity at the Reformation; and in so writing he showed himself a true heir of the Reformers. For his statement is no more, just as it is no less, than a straightforward spelling out of what Luther had meant when he called justification by faith articulus stands aut cadentis ecclesiae—the point of belief which determines (not politically or financially, but theologically and spiritually) whether the Church stands or falls..."

576 posted on 12/07/2006 9:59:53 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Our Lord and Saviour could have come as the emporer of Rome if he wanted. Instead he came to us through a humble, poor, peasant woman. He grew up in a rural, poor, backwater of the Roman Empire and he transformed us and the world.

Amen.

"And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." -- Matthew 13:54-58

I always found the last verse interesting. "And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

If Christ had wanted to save them, he could have done His mighty works before their eyes and caused them to believe. But Christ understood their disbelief was ordained by God, and so He moved on and worked miracles in front of those whom He knew were His whom God had given Him.

577 posted on 12/07/2006 10:09:57 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

The doctrine of Justification is certainly on the list, but it is not one that is specific and to the point regarding total lack of scriptural support. The others are....to include opulence.

I just can't imagine Peter wandering around in all that gold filigree, gold crowns, and gold scepters and staffs.

Or Paul.

Or John

Or....name the 12


578 posted on 12/07/2006 10:24:49 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; annalex; Wallace T.; Kolokotronis; kosta50
I could VERY well be wrong about this, but I have a vague memory from the L&E thread that the Orthodox don't agree with "something" about Transubstantiation, but I can't remember what it is

Inasmuch as it means "Real Presence," i.e. True Body and True Blood of our Lord and Savior,it is in full agreement with Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodox, however, do not attempt to "explain" how God's Mysteries (Sacraments) happen.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, the priest asks the Holy Spirit to intercede and change mysteriously the blessed bread and wine into Body and Blood (epiklesis). In the Catholic Church, the epiklesis is invoked, but is less prominent, because the change is mediated by the priest, acting in the place of Christ.

With that we do not agree. Both traditions have always maintained the Real Presence, but the theory of transubstantiation is alien to Orthodox phronema (mindset).

579 posted on 12/07/2006 10:30:11 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; blue-duncan
I really don't understand why our authorities ought be charged with malign or self-interested intent.

Because that is all Protestantism is: a calumny of the intent of the Pope and the Church. The rationalizing false theologies of the "solas" came later.

580 posted on 12/07/2006 10:30:36 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson