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/
Anthony the great needs to spend some time with Dr E's Random Scripture generator as well. Scripture says He gets angry. Anthony's response is "no he doesn't" without giving an alternative understanding - just Scripture says that but it isn't so. Sorry, that doesnt' work. Scripture says it. Now WHY does it say it and how can it be so if he is immutable? The article I posted above does a better job of explaining this - but again, I see us getting in trouble because we are trying to explain in human terms a God who is above full understanding and explanation. Scripture says God has emotions. That shouldn't be swept under the rug. And your strawman of Protestant belief is just that, a strawman. Our understanding of God is far more complex than that -for He is far more complex.
I think this all illuminates the problems of sola scriptura.
You can, and do, get all sorts of differing views of the divine nature.
Our denominational lists don't matter much.
Our personal private interpretation lists don't matter much.
God's list matters wholesale.
Jesus spoke mostly/many times in metaphor.. sometimes anthropomorphised..
BUT many run to see the pets falling.. nevertheless..
Thats WHY I see this as quite a large subject..
And as A-G suggests part of the "observer" problem...
= = = =
True.
Though I tend to have a bias in favor of literalist interpreations AND metaphorical interpretations . . . there are seemingly clearly times when metaphorical is the only sensible one.
Though sometimes . . . having fun is hazardous to . . . starchy sensibilities . . . but then, that's probably one of the better objectives.
"He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm"
Let's see: There's Noah and the flood; Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah; Moses and Pharoah plagues/firstborn death/ Red Sea; Joshua and the "longest day"; Gideon and the 300; David and Goliath; Assyria and the Northern tribes; Chaldea and the Southern tribes; the Crucifixion; Peter and Ananias and Sapphira. Did I leave anything out?
Nice try.
What gives one differing views of the divine nature is man's tendency to try to come up with an explanation for everything. God is not fully explainable. Doesn't stop man from trying.
God's list is mentioned explicitly in Holy Scripture where one finds women covering their heads, not preaching, and finds folks confessing their sins to one another.
I dunno, read Blue-Duncan's post for an example.
Point being that if your theology is sola scriptura, you will come up with differing views in your theology.
"The article I posted above does a better job of explaining this"
How does one leap from God is not impassible to God has emotions? It would seem to me obvious to all that God is not impassible. It is apparent from the Incarnation, indeed from our very existence. The apophatic statement, "God is not impassible" does not include as a necessary corrolary "God gets very angry at us because we offend Him". Beyond some appreciation for the demonstrable fact that God loves His creation, we really can't say much more about whatever it is that God "feels", though I think it is safe to say that whatever we observe which is truly of God is of God's love for creation.
There is much that is good in the article, B. Theism is a particularly dangerous heresy. But then in the end, the author states:
"Furthermore, God's hatred and His love, His pleasure and his grief over sin—are as fixed and immutable as any other aspect of the divine character (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).[23] If God appears to change moods in the biblical narrative—or in the outworking of His Providence—it is only because from time to time in His dealings with His people, He brings these various dispositions more or less to the forefront, showing us all the aspects of His character. But His love is never overwhelmed by His wrath, or vice versa. In fact, there is no real change in Him at all."
Isn't this just spin, B, a way to escape the West's unfortunate tendency to so emphasize "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", that millions upon millions have become atheists rather than accept worship of a God which, to them, desires and requires evil, indeed is the author of evil, without being forced into giving up the notion that the scriptures can be correctly interpreted by anyone who "has" the Holy Spirit upon him? The Fathers who decided on the canon of scripture didn't believe what that author has written. Fully familiar with scripture, they wrote:
"Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense ... those who have a mind understand this." +Isaac the Syrian, Homily 83
"It is because fear edifies simpler people" +Basil the Great, That God is not the Cause of Evil.
"For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God." +Gregory the Theologian, Fifth Theological Oration.
"Did I leave anything out?"
Just understanding.
"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." -- John 10:18
God commanded Christ to lay down His life for His sheep, which He did, willingly, "for the joy that was set before him" (the "joy" being the salvation of His elect.)
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." -- Hebrews 12:2
Am all for confessing sins to one another. Done it most of my life.
Our notions of what is on God's list are different.
Paul made it clear that when it wasn't a core issue of the faith, we are to be charitable toward one another and
NOT
PROUD, RIGID, NARROW, PRISSY, CONSTIPATED, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, VAIN-GLORIOUS, STUBBORN, EXCLUSIONARY, HEARTLESS, . . .
I have the bias that Paul knew what he was talking about and that such an exhortation was from The Lord.
So . . . is the doctrine you are espousing
THAT
I should pay attention to St Paul when he's giving his personal opinion about women in a local historical context as though it were the 10 Commandments from Mr Sinai
BUT IGNORE ST PAUL when he very sternly exhorts us to be charitable and conciliatory about relatively minor differences of interpretation about Scriptural principles and spiritual life?
And, please, pray tell . . . what are we to use to guide us in such
ARBITRARY PICKING AND CHOOSING from St Paul?
As though the traditions of the Roman group have been 100% identical through out these many many centuries!
LOL
LOL
LOL
ROTFLOL
HYSTERICALLY.
GUFFAWS TO THE MAX
I've never seen 'Guffaws to the Max' before.
I've learned another piece of the hip kid's lingo. Thank you.
"As though the traditions of the Roman group have been 100% identical through out these many many centuries!"
Some of us, uncharitably no doubt, would include Protestants in the "Roman group"! :)
You're picking and choosing from st paul, not me.
If you don't see the vain pride you have in your own statements then you're one wrse for being blind to your own faults.
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.