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/
Well said, and thank you for the appropriate quote.
Thank you. Good to see you posting, too. Remember the OWK days?
It's Romans 6, Kolo. That's where the rub is.
He should be judged by the standard of monastic vows he and the nuns he corrupted had chosen for themselves voluntarily.
I don't object to "walk", merely point out that it is how we understand salvific work. It is something we do.
Peter offered very little of spiritual revelation in the bible.. except for his gross mistakes.. All other writers of the new testestament and the old one too.. were much deeper and richer in thought.. and spiritual insight..
Peter was pretty much a spiritual doofus.. or schelmiel.. or even schmozzle.. The Barney Fife of the New Testament.. Useing him as a model should be re-thunk... Ya think?..
Fascinating.
"It's Romans 6, Kolo. That's where the rub is."
Well, I just read it in English and Greek. I don't see where one gets instant theosis out of Rom. 6. Were that the case, why is +Paul bothering to speak to the Romans. If the fix is in, the fix is in. Rom. 6 seems to be telling us what Christ has done for us and how we are to conform our free will to respond to that. In other words, we've now got another chance to get it right. What am I missing, Kosta?
I have nothing but scorn for Luther. Sorry.
I would expect no more of you.
Thanks for your exposition on culpability and disordered.
I think that pretty well states, and should close, the case.
This is dispositive for me. I don't really care what linguistic and historical path has the deposit of Faith delivered tot he Apostles followed. The Septuagint illumines the thinking of the apostles. As a Christian, this is of the primary importance.
you're saying that one should accept the Vulgate as definitive--but not follow Jerome's example in going back to the original languages of the Scripture to do any new translation?
Something similar. I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful. If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
you're saying that we should not follow the Apostle--and Rabbi--Sha'ul's example
See above. The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture, hence his preference cannot be used to deprecate the septuagint. I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
the mere fact that Jamnia ratified what was already accepted hardly makes it wrong.
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
"It's Romans 6, Kolo. That's where the rub is."
Take a look at the end of +John Chrysostomos' Homily X and all of Homily XI on Romans.
Of course. What is there in the wider context that you think needs to be considered? I discussed the Real Presence disputation on this thread at length. Want to do it again? You know where to find me.
I don't think it asserts that at all. It says that Christ dies for our sin and that we should become dead to sin.
Every now and then you post something that reflects an ignorant and angry attitude, and at the same time does not contain anything to argue about logically. That is your opinion? Fine. Now get lost. I do not argue with opinions.
Alex, being a simple Greek, I don't understand the issue here. The Church uses various versions of the canon of Scripture with minor differences in the Greek and Latin; the West the Vulgate, we Greeks the Byzantine Canon and the Septuagint as our "approved" texts. I don't know about the Arabs and the Slavs, but I am confident they do the same. This is what The Church has determined. Why would we ever care what "older" or "other" versions might exist except to the extent that they might, as translations into the vernacular, lead anytone in The Church astray? What I mean is, who cares what the Jews established or how the Protestants translated the Vulgate or the Byzantine Canon or the Septuagint?
"How does Catholic or Orthodox Church explain Roman 6:10 [...] It asserts that Christians don't sin.
I don't think it asserts that at all. It says that Christ dies for our sin and that we should become dead to sin."
Like I said earlier, read +John Chrysostomos' Homilies X & Xi on Romans. Seems pretty clear to me.
Perhaps it is better to understand the phrase dead to sin as meaning in a state of existence involving separation to sin. No longer does our living depend upon the law, rather our life is separate from the disobedience of Him.
Do we violate the law? Sure, no doubt about the legalism, but through faith in Christ we have life because He has already paid the debt of sin.
We've been separated from sin carrying us into death, again by faith, and when we live in that faith we also abide by the law.
I see humor is wasted on you bucko..
There was nothing angry in my post..
I accept Peter as a brother just as I do any other Barney Fife christian.. Being a christian is not about being smart.. its about being chosen with Gods favor..
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.