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/
***(Gasp! It's a list!)***
With more than 5 points!
Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is evidence of one's election.
As such, no sheep will ever be lost, but will be brought to salvation by His redemption of them which was completed by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world through the grace of God alone.
"always uncertain of their own salvation."
Don't knock it. There's a lot of money to be made and power to be got in uncertainty. Remember, "If you don't play, you can't win" (Hezekiah 6:66).
Wow, that's it in a nut shell!
Amen to both your posts. I would add that, while I have never doubted my salvation, I've never felt that I was "doing enough" or bearing fruit. Once I fully understood that God wants me "just as I am", I feel now that He who has begun a good work in me will bring it to completion. It is difficult to imagine how much guilt this has released me from.
Ok, if your analogy is God as the legal system, then.. it breaks down too quickly to be useful, I think. Because "guilt" in this is a matter of our heart, which only God knows, which God sees in His manner, which only God knows again.
So, it may be that the drunk in the corner is a Saint or an angel for all we know. Therefore I have to put upfront a huge caveat that God as judge metting punishment for our sins on the basis of a externally objectively definable legal code... I have problems with that model.
Quickly I think we would be at the mercy of the Court.
However we are discussing personal choice and freedom, sin and punishment here, so "Do what thou wilt and ask for mercy" isn't much of a reply.
I can however discuss levels of punishment and responsibility for our mistakes - our wrong choices. And I think this will mirror enough of your reply to make a reply.
Without mens rea, we are, on the face of it, not guilty. Mens rea ex ante I mean. We can't be responsible of a wrong choice we did not know was wrong. However, this should result in mens rea ex post. In a healthy person, conscience develops also from experience. It could be as little as "Why do I keep making choices I regret?"
The Church, I believe, has a good leading on this. If we get spiffed and everytime we do, we continue on to drunk and usually when we're drunk we get angry and when we get angry we fight...
Then, knowing this, getting spiffed is, yes, an equivalent mistake or the point we know now we must exercise free choice. We may even, upon examination, see that we are angry to begin with and get drunk in order to be able to do what we won't let ourselves do sober.
In the analogy, the punishment for our sins is separation from God. We may, early on, not recognize God, but we experience the separation still. The dynamic of doing what we think we want vs. what we think we should reveals our conscience. If we get healthier the choice between these two decreases - this I believe is metanoia. Our "wants" change.
To help us develop this health is a large part of the Church's role.
The punishment we take upon ourselves is directly related to how much we knowingly separate ourselves from God, and our conscience is our initial and base point for "judging" this.
Back to your analogy of responsibility for bound choices. In another sense we are responsible - not in the sense of being guilty for choosing something we could not choose, but being responsible for what we choose in all cases.
Further, if we harm someone, even unintentionally, this guilt is ours, we cannot simply say "I didn't know any better." and go on. Neither can we say, "it was God's will." With rare exceptions we're responsible for the results of our choices and actions.
If harm results, have to examine why, how we could have prevented it if possible, and we have to make amends for the results of our actions regardless. So, in your analogy, this would vary with the physical (and emotional and spiritual) harm our choices resulted in. This is closer to the legal scale in your analogy.
This harm and guilt is separate, but not completely, from the harm we do to ourselves. It is another part of healthy growth to see that everything we do affects others. A conscience cannot develop without love. Jesus's commandments are the key to it all.
I do hope I've understood your reply and haven't gone off sideways forever.
I always laugh when we are accused of "cheap grace" because of our firm belief in salvation by grace through faith, the gift of God, not works or the will of man and the assurance it gives. In the middle of Edward's first Resolution, he says, "Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general." The fruit of this great salvation, not the cause or the cooperation. My church has the Cliff Notes version of the Resolutions which we affirm at the first prayer meeting of the New Year.
Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.
1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God' s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever.
Consider David.
When you really think about it, he was Michael Corleone in a shepherd suit. Everything in his personal life, family life, and public life wasn't worth spit. He was a great warrior 'til he hit mid-life crisis time, but even that wasn't him.
Like he says, "Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven..."
I'll let everyone else attempt this saintliness gig on their own.
I am definitely a Christian life Calvinist. Calvin nails Romans 7. Wesley and Arminius blew it.
Consider David.
When you really think about it, he was Michael Corleone in a shepherd suit. Everything in his personal life, family life, and public life wasn't worth spit. He was a great warrior 'til he hit mid-life crisis time, but even that wasn't him.
Like he says, "Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven..."
I'll let everyone else attempt this saintliness gig on their own.
I am definitely a Christian life Calvinist. Calvin nails Romans 7. Wesley and Arminius blew it.
"The pious (Orthodox/Catholic) believer knows firsthand that Jesus is his Savior, but the drowning man does not cry out to the lifeguard, "Intercede for me!"
This quote actually puzzles me. Our side also says that we know firsthand that Christ is our savior. Further, we say the saving (within time) is already done for knowing members of the elect. We are the ones who claim confidence. It would seem that if any side would feel "free" to spread around the prayers, it would be ours. Yet, our faith says to never do this because only God is deserving of our prayers.
Without assurance, and since prayer and other deeds are part and parcel to your salvation/theosis, I would think you would be LESS likely to deviate your direct attention away from God and onto Mary and the Saints.
Can a mental or intellectual activity ever be a "work"?
Consider David.
When you really think about it, he was Michael Corleone in a shepherd suit. Everything in his personal life, family life, and public life wasn't worth spit. He was a great warrior 'til he hit mid-life crisis time, but even that wasn't him.
Like he says, "Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven..."
I'll let everyone else attempt this saintliness gig on their own.
I am definitely a Christian life Calvinist. Calvin nails Romans 7. Wesley and Arminius blew it.
Be still, my heart. 8~)
Have you read Romans 7. Arminius claims it's about a pre-Christian.
No way.
And at least as much in certainty.
Yep. What is sold when we preach assurance? The Bible is free on-line and in it one can find His salvation.
Unlike the church of Rome who works to sell the grace of God and His forgiveness through the presumptive bartering of prayer. "Do this; say this; pay this, and be saved."
As if.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." -- Matthew 6:7-8"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." -- 2 Corinthians 2:17
"Without assurance, and since prayer and other deeds are part and parcel to your salvation/theosis, I would think you would be LESS likely to deviate your direct attention away from God and onto Mary and the Saints."
And yet for 2000+/- we have prayed to the saints and the Theotokos to intercede for us, as people have asked their friends to pray for them for at least as long(leaving aside the implications contained in a loaded term like deviate!). :)
"rather than holding your own back patting session we might get somewhere"
Come on, I don't see any Neener/Calvinist caucus threads in the forum, but I sure see a lot of Roman Catholic caucus threads here.
I'm talking about the proper interpretation of Romans 7.
Don't misunderstand me.
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.