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/
We have these thoughts whether we want them or not. The only thing we may choose to do is dwell on the sinful thoughts that our nature brings to our attention or ask God that He forgive us and leads us from temptation.
I stated: "You forgot a third choice; they're not really Christians."
If people deliberately want to live in sin, I doubt very seriously if they are Christians regardless of what they call themselves.
I think that is a fair point but it doesn't negate the conclusion of how the Vatican relates to sin. Sin must be acted out. Thus a man isn't really sinning if he has impure thoughts towards someone other than his wife. He is only sinning if he acts upon those thoughts. All you have to do is go back through my exchanges and you'll see this is the interpretation of the Church.
Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters.. God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive.. NOT a formulaic human observation..
For the philosophers among us the difference is between the image (or artifacts) of the person and the Person.
The inference is that assemblies per se seem to want to look at the image rather than the Person and thus there are dogmas, traditions, etc. Also related to post 5923, i.e. the dogma and tradition are a 'vail' like the one which was wanted to obscure His glory from Moses' face.
Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters.. God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive.. NOT a formulaic human observation..
For the philosophers among us the difference is between the image (or artifacts) of the person and the Person.
The inference is that assemblies per se seem to want to look at the image rather than the Person and thus there are dogmas, traditions, etc. Also related to post 5923, i.e. the dogma and tradition are a 'vail' like the one which was wanted to obscure His glory from Moses' face.
Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters.. God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive.. NOT a formulaic human observation..
For the philosophers among us the difference is between the image (or artifacts) of the person and the Person.
The inference is that assemblies per se seem to want to look at the image rather than the Person and thus there are dogmas, traditions, etc. Also related to post 5923, i.e. the dogma and tradition are a 'vail' like the one which was wanted to obscure His glory from Moses' face.
Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters.. God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive.. NOT a formulaic human observation..
For the philosophers among us the difference is between the image (or artifacts) of the person and the Person.
The inference is that assemblies per se seem to want to look at the image rather than the Person and thus there are dogmas, traditions, etc. Also related to post 5923, i.e. the dogma and tradition are a 'vail' like the one which was wanted to obscure His glory from Moses' face.
Taking this very thing for granted (He is alive) trumps opinion.. or dead letters.. God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is/are alive.. NOT a formulaic human observation..
For the philosophers among us the difference is between the image (or artifacts) of the person and the Person.
The inference is that assemblies per se seem to want to look at the image rather than the Person and thus there are dogmas, traditions, etc. Also related to post 5923, i.e. the dogma and tradition are a 'vail' like the one which was wanted to obscure His glory from Moses' face.
= = =
Very accurate, imho.
Thanks.
"Lust is a decision."
Job 31:1 "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?"
Heb. 12:1, "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"
In both verses the idea is not to look at another woman if looking is not yet sin but a weight, a weakness that could become sin.
I agree with your reply, and "We have these thoughts whether we want them or not." is true of course - to some degree.
But if you think about it, our mind and our thoughts are not completely out of our control. We can notice, for example, that the negative thoughts come more when we are around certain places or people or when we read some types of literature or listen to some kinds of music. Or we may notice they come less when we are focused on God, or they come less the more we pray.
This may be part of why Paul exhorted us to pray without ceasing.
thanks for your reply.
Fine, have it your way. I was merely responding to your posts.
Yes. Exactly. I think we'd call this avoiding the near occassion of sin.
Drawing boundaries around the actions that lead to the thoughts that lead to the sin.
But yeah and sho' 'nuff! The peril of theologians is to prefer theology to God.
= = =
Too true.
I personally have no huge quibble with RC folks who have their priorities straight and their seeking, focus, behaviors centered on God.
It's those who, because of their particular brands of humanness, are more or less addicted to the hideous interloping elements of vain-glorious leadership and followership patterns of thought, focus and behavior.
As I've said repeatedly, such occurs far more in Protestant groups than most seem aware of. But the RC edifice, customs etc. is typically far older and much more rife with such because of the entrenched traditions etc.
Indeed.
There's something inherently human that fiercely resists the Scriptural exhortation that our best works of righteousness are as used Kotex.
It affronts our pride wholesale.
Then the tendency is to say something like--well, if that's the case, then I may as well not try.
But that misses the point too. Our works of righteousness MOST RIGHTEOUSLY flow out of our Love and gratitude to our Lord for HIS FREE GIFT OF SALVATION.
The human hazard satan likes to make so much hay out of is the human need to STRIVE in our own flesh and strength and to assume we have earned righteousness therefrom. And plenty of evils get built up on that.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:5-10 (also John 15)
That also is the difference between Martha and Mary in Luke 10. Martha was cumbered about much serving. She was "doing". Mary was feeding on the Living Word of God, she was "being".
That, my beloved sisters and brothers, is the Spiritual discernment I have received of John 6 - we are to feed on Him, The Living Word of God. That is the meaning of Lord's command, "take, eat, this is my body" and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26)
= = = =
Indeed.
""I think that is a fair point but it doesn't negate the conclusion of how the Vatican relates to sin. Sin must be acted out""
You have No idea what the Church teaches!
From New advent
Article 5. Whether every sin includes an action? Objection 1. It would seem that every sin includes an action. For as merit is compared with virtue, even so is sin compared with vice. Now there can be no merit without an action. Neither, therefore, can there be sin without action.
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [Cf. De Vera Relig. xiv.]: So "true is it that every sin is voluntary, that, unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all." Now nothing can be voluntary, save through an act of the will. Therefore every sin implies an act.
Objection 3. Further, if sin could be without act, it would follow that a man sins as soon as he ceases doing what he ought. Now he who never does something that he ought to do, ceases continually doing what he ought. Therefore it would follow that he sins continually; and this is untrue. Therefore there is no sin without an act.
On the contrary, It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is a sin." Now "not to do" does not imply an act .Therefore sin can be without act.
I answer that, The reason for urging this question has reference to the sin of omission, about which there have been various opinions. For some say that in every sin of omission there is some act, either interior or exterior--interior, as when a man wills "not to go to church," when he is bound to go--exterior, as when a man, at the very hour that he is bound to go to church (or even before), occupies himself in such a way that he is hindered from going. This seems, in a way, to amount to the same as the first, for whoever wills one thing that is incompatible with this other, wills, consequently, to go without this other: unless, perchance, it does not occur to him, that what he wishes to do, will hinder him from that which he is bound to do, in which case he might be deemed guilty of negligence. On the other hand, others say, that a sin of omission does not necessarily suppose an act: for the mere fact of not doing what one is bound to do is a sin.
Now each of these opinions has some truth in it. For if in the sin of omission we look merely at that in which the essence of the sin consists, the sin of omission will be sometimes with an interior act, as when a man wills "not to go to church": while sometimes it will be without any act at all, whether interior or exterior, as when a man, at the time that he is bound to go to church, does not think of going or not going to church.
If, however, in the sin of omission, we consider also the causes, or occasions of the omission, then the sin of omission must of necessity include some act. For there is no sin of omission, unless we omit what we can do or not do: and that we turn aside so as not to do what we can do or not do, must needs be due to some cause or occasion, either united with the omission or preceding it. Now if this cause be not in man's power, the omission will not be sinful, as when anyone omits going to church on account of sickness: but if the cause or occasion be subject to the will, the omission is sinful; and such cause, in so far as it is voluntary, must needs always include some act, at least the interior act of the will: which act sometimes bears directly on the omission, as when a man wills "not to go to church," because it is too much trouble; and in this case this act, of its very nature, belongs to the omission, because the volition of any sin whatever, pertains, of itself, to that sin, since voluntariness is essential to sin. Sometimes, however, the act of the will bears directly on something else which hinders man from doing what he ought, whether this something else be united with the omission, as when a man wills to play at the time he ought to go to church--or, precede the omission, as when a man wills to sit up late at night, the result being that he does not go to church in the morning. In this case the act, interior or exterior, is accidental to the omission, since the omission follows outside the intention, and that which is outside the intention is said to be accidental (Phys. ii, text. 49,50). Wherefore it is evident that then the sin of omission has indeed an act united with, or preceding the omission, but that this act is accidental to the sin of omission.
Now in judging about things, we must be guided by that which is proper to them, and not by that which is accidental: and consequently it is truer to say that a sin can be without any act; else the circumstantial acts and occasions would be essential to other actual sins.
Reply to Objection 1. More things are required for good than for evil, since "good results from a whole and entire cause, whereas evil results from each single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv): so that sin may arise from a man doing what he ought not, or by his not doing what he ought; while there can be no merit, unless a man do willingly what he ought to do: wherefore there can be no merit without act, whereas there can be sin without act.
Reply to Objection 2. The term "voluntary" is applied not only to that on which the act of the will is brought to bear, but also to that which we have the power to do or not to do, as stated in Ethic. iii, 5. Hence even not to will may be called voluntary, in so far as man has it in his power to will, and not to will.
Reply to Objection 3. The sin of omission is contrary to an affirmative precept which binds always, but not for always. Hence, by omitting to act, a man sins only for the time at which the affirmative precept binds him to act
No, and here's your problem. Scripture does not say God is working with us; it says God is working in us. And what He is working in us is "both to will and to do of His good pleasure." The concept of some partial, semi-effectual, prevenient grace denies the meaning of grace itself.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:12-13
= = = =
Oh, dear . . . here I am agreeing with you AGAIN!
And brushing up against, oh, dear . . . CALVINISM !!!
running screaming into the snowy night . . .
[joke]
Harley why do people sin if not because they choose to? Living in sin is no one's long-term goal, but when faced with temptations they choose temptations.
That's not living in sin, that's committing sin. People tell little white lies, not because they want to live a life of lying, but because a little white lie seems to be a better alternative at times than telling the truth.
People weigh their options and then choose. Christians always have a choice. They don't always make the right one. They sin willingly and knowingly, like the rest of humanity.
It's the way you respond, Kosta. It's demeaning to any of us who call ourselves Christian protestants. Bye.
I have heard that the brain chemistry-physiological effect begins for addicts while they prepare the injection and stick themselves, before the drug even enters their blood.
That must be something for him to have overcome. God is good.
Thanks for posting, BD.
Try to explain this one!...
One of the creeds said in the Catholic Mass is this....
The Confiteor
I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. Amen
That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness" (Matthew 23:27).You offer:
Thus a man isn't really sinning if he has impure thoughts towards someone other than his wife.
I think that, Yes, he is, if he has the thoughts. The feeling of attraction in itself is not sinful. It's a strong part of what makes babies, and you know Catholics are all in favor of puppies. But when you commit the ACT of fantasizing, of undressing her with your eyes, of saying to yourself, "Hmmm, C-cup or D-cup," that there is an act, sinful one.
I think that the passion of being attracted to a member of the opposite sex is a passion. In itself it is blameless because you didn't do it -- it happened in and to you. It is, or can be, a PROBLEM, but it doesn't rise to the level of culpability.
But it rarely occurs by itself. Usually it is accompanied by welcomed fantasies, however brief, which involve, as I said earlier, using the person for one's pleasure or self-aggrandizement. That's a defect of charity, aside from anything else. So NOW we've got a sin. I think there is freedom involved in whether or not to engage in or entertain those fantasies. Like lots of freedoms, its exercise may have to be learned, but it is, I think, learnable.
Virtues and vices have a habitual side. One has a cigarette after eating or swears when he drops his car keys, and pretty soon the cigarette just appears in one's hands or the oath issues from one's mouth without a conscious act of will. So becoming aware of the now semi-autonomous act, the moment of silent decision, takes effort. Early on it may be the best one can do is say, "Oh! I'm smoking!" and put out the cigarette, or say, "Oh I swore again, I'm sorry, God, it's gross, and I want to stop."
Likewise with the sinful sequels to the good of sexual attraction. One thing I've done is when I catch myself in that activity, is turn away from the lady in question, apologize to God, and pray for her welfare.
At first it seemed to me that the sinful act was indissolubly linked with the attraction. A little sobriety and vigilance and, blammo!, every once in while I can hear the roaring lion before I'm in his jaws.
HD,..I've found the following model to explain sin to be very helpful.
As believers, we have body, soul, and spirit.
Our soul is composed of our mind and our heart.
When we first are saved with eternal life, God, the Holy SPirit regenerates the spirit, and indwells us and seals us.
While we remain in fellowship with Him, in our mind, in our volition, we obey Him and are one with Him.
Our mind might have thoughts or ideas that enter upon it, either from ourselves or others. We might be tempted by deceiving spirits, by our past scarred thinking habits in our mind, or by the Holy Spirit performing His enableing ministry in us as we study Bible doctrine by reading the Word, the Holy SPirit making that Word understood to our spirit supernaturally by our perception of faith, and then making it understood to our mind,..a part of our soul, as GNOSIS.
As Gnosis in the mind, the thought isn't yet actionable, but is simply an understood thought. A mental function.
Next, while we remain in fellowship with Him, He makes that GNOSIS understood to our heart, still in our soul, and the GNOSIS becomes EPIGNOSIS. EPIGNOSIS as a type of knowledge which is usable in daily life.
So far we've discussed how the Holy SPirit works in our soul, while we remain in felloship with Him, thereby a situation has been established by God where He can continue to sanctify us.
Now, we discuss volition.
When in our volition we decide to remain in fellowhip with Him, to obey the truth, then we remain in a state where God is able to continue to further sanctify us without violating His own integrity and immutability.
If, by our volition, we decide in our thinking processes, along a line of thinking which is NOT by God's will, i.e. independent of Him, or in violation of His truth, then we have sinned.
I agree with you whole heartedly, that a thought in the mind, by itself, without our volition, is not yet a sin or disobedience to Him. But, as soon as we add our volition, either we remain in fellowship with Him, or we step out of fellowship and have sinned.
There are many sins which begin as an attitude in our mind, our thinking processes.
Our hearts may be previously scarred from our past lives, our old sin nature, the old man, the natural man, so we might be guilty of many, many, many unknown sins, simply by our scarred souls. When in felloship with Him though, He also brings these to our conscience at His pace. He always does all the work in our sanctification.
So it is very possible to sin in the mind and heart, still soulful activity, a mental attitude sin, if you will,... but we also might manifest that sin in our physical behavior. The physical sin adds the influence of sin upon the body, as well as the mind.
In each case of sin, when the believer confesses that sin in private with God through faith in Christ (turning back to Him) by the invokation of 1John 1:9, the believer is returned to fellowship with God and His sins are forgiven and forgotten. Then the Holy Spirit is free in His grace to continue His sanctification of our thinking.
Is this a fair way to express your understanding of how some thoughts are not sin, yet also accounting for how our volition is involved in sin?
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.