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/
Astounding. Since when does the Roman Catholic church refute the inspiration of Scripture?
Has your church actually come so far from the truth that you now deny God authored the Holy Bible?
Astounding.
I thank God my family and I are covered in the righteousness of Christ.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
Amen. They construct straw houses in dry and windy weather.
That sentence makes no sense in light of Scripture.
If you can't defend history, deny history.
AMEN!
This is kinda fun posting amongst only myself late at night. Nobody argues with me. 8~)
CORTEZ THE KILLER
He came dancing across the water
With his galleons and guns
Looking for the new world
In that palace in the sun...
Honestly, that is to the point of being laughable. Shall we bring up paying for indulgences? Was that a "perversion of doctrine" or a bad mistake from the throne Chair of Peter? How about the worship (not veneration) of Mary? Or that God's grace is dispensed through a wafer and a shot of wine? Or God disperses His knowledge through the Pope? Even the Orthodox don't believe some of these things.
Personally I prefer to make my own mistakes and allow God to call me on the carpet for them rather than following the mistakes established by others.
(:
Keep your eyes on the text, Son.
Oh. I see. How wrong I was! But this well-reasoned, articulately expressed and persuasive argument immediately convinces me of the error of my thinking.
/sarc
Seriously, I already knew you disagreed. Calling what I say hogwash doesn't add to that knowledge and doesn't incline me to adopt your opinion.
COME UNTO ME ALL YOU WHO LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN.
The Speaker is Jesus. Jesus is the Son, not the Father.
COME UNTO ME LITTLE CHILDREN.
Who is the speaker? (And where is this text?)
EXCEPT YOU COME AS A LITTLE CHILD.
Is this in the Bible? There's something like it late in Matthew, but it's in a saying about entering the Kingdom of Heaven, not about access to the Father.
I'm sorry. WHAT has been refuted repeatedly?
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I'm not saying the any particular group of official gnostics are influencing Protestantism. I'm saying the idea of the invisible Church is itself vaguely gnostic, not in its background but in its essence.
Here's what it looks like to me, so here's what I was trying to put up for USEFUL (hey, this capitalization stuff is FUN!) comment and criticism:
Over here we have the vast clunkiness of RC and EO. It's easy to tell where the Church is, and who is in it, and who is, so to speak WAY in it. If you're Baptized you're in it, if you're in full communion with the See of Rome or the various Patriarchal Sees, you're WAY in it. But this is not a guaranteed pass into heaven.
And over THERE we have the elect, those who read the Scriptures in the Spirit and call upon the Name of the Lord with sincerity and have the "blessed assurance". But we're not sure who they are.
That's all I'm saying: two very different ecclesiologies, related to two very different views of authority. I'm not ready to rear back and unveil some devastating argument to show that I, like King Friday, am "correct as usual", because I don't have one. I'm just trying to grasp the question.
I thought the Apostles writings were divinely inspired by God, written by God through men. Isn't that what the Church teaches? The same can't be said for +Basil the Great or +John Chgrystotom. At least the early church fathers specifically pointed out what writings were divinely inspired. Now it seems the Church considers the writings of the early church fathers, in some cases, to be inspired writings when they never stated it to be so.
It is interesting to note how you really seem to have a problem with St. Paul. This is remarkable considering the fact that Peter told us to listen to his teachings and he wrote about 2/3 of the New Testament.
Please tell me, show me, what have the Orthodox changed?
Can bishops (priests) marry? Didn't we discuss this somewhere back on this thread? I know, you guys will say this isn't theology but Church discipline. A change is a change.
I ask my "Reformed" Christian brethren to be respectful of Catholic theology with their comments on this thread. Thanks in advance for your cooperation
That worked, didn't it?
And I thought I was a night owl!
If one listens to most of them for long, one notices phrases like "one would imagine" and "one would think". Their rantings are not based upon objective evidence but on their own imaginations.
I will never forget one of the more popular of these folks, Crosson, when he said that Jesus was not buried in a tomb like Joseph of Arimathea's but was likely put in a potters grave where he didn't rise from the dead but had dogs eat his body.
And, of course, this is who the liberal media runs to every time they want to do a "documentary" on who Jesus was. At least Fox news goes to conservatives (though frankly, I think that in their choices they could go to some deeper vessels than they typically do. Guess that is marketing to the masses for you).
I love it when Franklin Graham comes on Fox. He never misses an opportunity to get in a salvation plug. It's fun just seeing how he is going to work it in. And, he's always working on Alan Colmes to try to get Alan to come to Christ. Fun to watch.
Amen. They construct straw houses in dry and windy weather.
= = =
Indeed, while playing with gasoline, dynamite, matches and cigarettes blindfolded and twice drunk.
Denial has been a favorite tool of satan for many centuries, millenia.
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.