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/
D-fendr, specificity is our friend. Which post???
No, Kolo. The spin is in how Protestant beliefs are being characterized.
Jonathan Edward's sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God most certainly did emphasize aspects of God's character. It was only by His mercy that they were not thrown into the fire like a spider whose web is stretched over the top of a flame .
People look at God in too cavalier of a manner. God is good. God is love. God is our buddy. God just wants to send us sunshine and roses every day. In reality, the biblical God is more complex.
He is never, "not good". But he does display anger, violence, and jealousy.
I am amazed at the opinions I am seeing stated here on this thread. They are very far from the God of Scripture.
One statement you made confuses me "Theism is a particularly dangerous heresy." What do you mean by this?
What about that post do you disavow?
"Just understanding."
You've been talking to my wife. That's just not fair.
"It was only by His mercy that they were not thrown into the fire like a spider whose web is stretched over the top of a flame ."
Isn't that a marvelous image! :)
One statement you made confuses me "Theism is a particularly dangerous heresy." What do you mean by this?
I mean that the idea that God is completely detached from creation, so much so that He is thoroughly impassible, is virtually the antithesis of what I think all of us here believe to a greater or lesser extent which is to say that our God is personal and connected directly to each of us in an active manner. Now where we part company is in how we view that connection or connections. Put in a very, very bad way, we differ on what we determine to be God's "motivation" for what we observe of His actions in creation. As for Theism, well, it is a dangerous heresy for precisely the reasons +Justin Martyr points out.
"He is never, "not good". But he does display anger, violence, and jealousy."
Well, we perceive him to be displaying anger, violence and jealousy. I'll agree with that.
"People look at God in too cavalier of a manner. God is good. God is love. God is our buddy. God just wants to send us sunshine and roses every day. In reality, the biblical God is more complex."
I agree with everything you say and I share your concern, however.... God is Love; God does send us "sunshine" everyday in the form of the grace to conform ourselves to Himself, to gain some similitude to Christ. But you and I both know that that isn't what many people believe is the purpose of God. They believe that we are supposed to "fulfill ourselves", "be true to ourselves", "express ourselves" and because God does indeed love us, that's what God "wants" for each of us. The results of this mentality are all around us in the wreckage of Western society. God created us for Himself and He created us in His image and likeness. Orthodoxy has always taught that Adam and Eve were created not perfect, not in a state of complete theosis, but rather as "infants" with that potential. Through the Fall that potential was lost and it was restored by the Incarnation. What was given to us was a second chance to fulfill our created purpose, which is to become like God. In order to do that we don't follow our own desires, but rather indeed die to those desires and live only according to God. By following our own desires, we necessarily reject God and far from becoming like Him, we become more and more lost until we reach a point where we curse God Who only loves us. In fact, that divine love, which is paradise for those who have arrived at a similitide of Christ, is a tormenting fire which burns those who have rejected Him. In the end, that torment isn't a result of God's imagined wrath, but rather a result of our own sinful rejection of God.
"You've been talking to my wife. That's just not fair."
All good attorneys are married to "She Who Must Be Obeyed" and they are all alike, just like we all had our own Professor Kingfield in Law School! :)
"Point being that if your theology is sola scriptura, you will come up with differing views [of the divine nature] in your theology."
That would be Professor KINGSFIELD.
I like them Fathers of your more and more.
I'm having another attack of the "great gulf fixed" blues. There is a VERY deep basic difference in method and in sort of meta-assumptions here, I think. Hard work ahead.
More on your other good points later or tomorrow.
"Nothing like the good old Laconic brevity, Kolo. Sure you are not part Spartan?"
From 25 miles +/- NW of Sparti! I remember one time when I was a little kid one of the nuns was teaching us about Athens and Sparta. When she asked the class who thought the Athenians were better, every hand went up but mine. When she asked why I felt that way, I said I thought the Athenians were sissies. I got sent to "the office". I spent so much time sitting outside that office in those days, visitors thought I was the principal's secretary.
God commanded Christ? There you go again, separating God from Christ!
Yup, there's definitely a Spartan in your lineage somewhere... :)
Wrong again. There is nothing more simple and indivisible than God, our reality notwithstanding.
Sorry, Blogger, long-winded answers without paragraph breaks I don't read. Make more than one post, use paragraps. I don't need a dissertation.
"There is nothing more simple and indivisible than God, our reality notwithstanding."
Thus?:
"Trinity is simple unity; it is not merged together - it is three in one. The One three-hypostatical God has the three hypostases perfectly distinct in Himself." +Gregory of Sinai
But then:
"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God." +Gregory the Theologian
Look up Heb 8...whoever the author of that book is, he is saying the same thing about the "House of Israel" just two chapters before yours. Not saints, but the unbelieveing Jews.
So much for predestination and God-given faith.
If you AREN't Sola Scriptura you'll come up with differing views. There are some things that the Orthodox and Catholics disagree on. Maybe not on the divine nature - but then again, I would submit most Sola Scriptura Protestants are in agreement there as well. On essentials, we have unity. There are differences in practice say between a Baptist and a Pentecostal and a Presybterian. SECONDARY ISSUES. All believe in the Trinity. All believe in the Deity of Christ. All believe in salvation by faith through grace. Some Pentecostals believe you can lose that salvation; but how you get it isn't the issue. They probably took their cue from Orthodox and Catholics there.
And, there are a gazillion different religions out there that don't believe Scripture at all - and have all come up with their own views of the divine nature.
It's called being human.
Unity does not mean we all think alike. Unity means there is a sense of harmony to how we operate as the body of Christ. The Lutherans don't usually immerse in baptism; but I still consider them my Christian brothers and sisters. The Presbyterians sometimes are a bit more formal than my church is. You know how much that affects my life? Zilch. I love them as brothers and sisters in Christ.
And you know what? There are even some Catholics and orthodox that I have had fellowship with!
Christ did not call a perfect church. We won't reach perfection until heaven. He called a church that would love one another like Christ loved the church - warts and all.
On essentials - there must be unity. The early creeds contain some essential basics of Christianity - but they got them from SCRIPTURE.
Scripture is the anchor. Scripture is the rule. God gave it to us for a reason. By it we test everything else.
That doesn't mean that we don't get new insight into things along the way that maybe the early church didn't understand. But whatever insights we gain MUST conform to Scripture.
Is there room for interpretation. Yep. But not on the essentials. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. I've seen arguments concerning the word "virgin" that when one really looks at the context (SOLA SCRIPTURA), don't hold water. Jesus was God (found in SCRIPTURE). There is a trinity (FOUND IN SCRIPTURE) which is one God in three persons (FOUND IN SCRIPTURE- maybe not an explicit statement but clearly there). Christ died to save us from our sins (FOUND IN SCRIPTURE). They that put their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus are saved. They that don't are damned. (SO SAYS SCRIPTURE). These are essentials. Many other doctrines are important; but the aren't at the same level as the essential doctrine.
As a Calvinist, I would put Calvinistic doctrine as a secondary doctrine. Quite important for understanding God, self, and salvation but can one get saved without believing it - sure. As a matter of fact, I think that the understanding comes later.
So - I guess, D-fendr, that was a long winded way of saying YES! SOLA SCRIPTURA LEADS TO VARYING INTERPRETATIONS but this isn't a bad thing! I disagree that there is a SOLA SCRIPTURA disagreement on the nature of God. There may be within Protestantism some disagreement; but not because one is SOLA SCRIPTURA. Protestantism has many who have lost their way too; just as Catholicism does and undoubtedly just as Orthodox does. It's part of the human condition. We aren't perfect yet.
Kosta. You have enough Cherries now to bake your pie. I suggest you go preheat the oven.
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.