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/
"A laity and many clergy btw who often times have worked against the 'meddling bishops' to preserve the faith...
Hmmmm...sounds like us Baptists."
Which is why, among other reasons, I commented that in some ways "Protestants" have a more traditional idea or concept of where the fullness of The Church is found than the Latins.
this is a public forum where the bible truth is being discussed, and what you posted was in sharp contrast to what 2 Kings says. If you don't want to learn bible truth then don't post your own ideas up here where they will be challenged.
Thanks AG.
Actually this is a forum which includes a number of different people talking about number of different issues more or less clearly related to the propriety or lack thereof of a movie's treatment of the Mother of God. And not all those people view the Bible the way you do.
And without having consulted anyone, I would venture to guess that Kosta's issue was not with the disagreement about the identity of the Samaritans but the remark that he didn't know what he was talking about.
I simply do not understand how people can talk about avoiding boasting and then "count coup", or try to, every time you score (or think you've scored) what you take to be a Biblical point. And then the rest of the homies gather round and exchange high fives.
If I wanted to persuade somebody, I'd make yielding to my point of view as impersonal and gentle as possible. You all seem to want to make it hard and humiliating. You seem to want to add to the difficulty of changing one's cherished opinion the further difficulty of knowing that you will mock your opponent like a football player who's reached the end zone.
Some want to set people free. Others evidently want to conquer. I see nothing of faith, hope, or charity in those of either side who set out to disrespect and to show contempt for those with whom they disagree and who take pride in upsetting those who differ from them. You did not so learn Christ. (Yes, I know you don't think RCs read the Scripture HALF so well as you do, but I know about Jesus's hard words. I just don't they they excuse, much less justify, yours.) I'd venture to say that between winning a soul to the Truth, or winning an argument, many here seem to prefer winning the argument and losing the soul.
God help us.
just wondering whether this crosses the line...
Thanks much.
Uhhhhhhhhhh, what line would that be?
asserting that there's a double standard when there's a double standard?
Guess I didn't get that memo.
other memos you may have missed...
first church in 2000+ years of Christianity to 'bless' same sex unions? protestants.
first church in 2000+ years of Christianity to 'ordain' homosexual clergy & bishops? protestants.
first church in 2000+ years of Christianity to say abortion is ok because it helps to poor? protestants.
Protestantism: wolves paving the way to hell in the name of Christ. (Just as St Paul warned)
I thought so much DOUBLE-STANDARDING caused chronic to terminal whiplash. Must have read the wrong memo.
Evidently an RC cardinal doctrine is that . . .
There can be all manner of flakey RC little groups buried in mossy towers and basements here and there within the lichen encrusted RC edifice . . . and they remain quite sufficiently saintly regardless of their off the wall unBiblical errors--normally openly admitted by one and all.
But when Protesties have flakey beliefs or flakey groups, then it's PROOF POSITIVE that they are NOT truly Christians, noticed by God or probably even human.
Very clear logic. Very impressive. Carry on. I wouldn't want to spook anyone with the real truth.
Caution to both of you and everyone on the thread: Jack Chick material is not allowed here because it mongers hatred. The same applies to individual posts.
"Don't post to me again" is just another way to silence your opponents when they are speaking what you don't want to hear and you don't want others to hear it either. If one has scriptural truth to back up his arguments, he should post it, or accept correction, not pout. Instead of posting to me, you might start with your own friends.
Hmmmmm . . . .
Maybe I'm clueless today or something . . . But I have nor felt no hate toward any individual.
I'm skeptical that there was any hate in that post.
IF there was, it was at an edifice, an institution, a structure that has been and remains in many respects exceedingly destructive--often just on that point of a horrid double standard.
I have no interest in being the least bit of a hate monger. I have no trouble loving all my RC bro and sis including all those on this forum.
In fact, it is such caring that constrains me to dare to be so vivid in trying to make starkly horrid deceptions, double standards etc. abundantly clear--outted.
But I remain eager to be teachable where I am wrong. And, I certainly submit to your excellent leadership.
I'm not really THAT familiar with Jack Chick material so I have no idea why the association with my post.
will keep that in mind... I think if it boils down to hate its pretty well jumped outside of christianity (and that's something I should keep in mind with my own posts indeed)
Notice no one pinged the moderator on the insulting post 8591 above, lol
Maybe we have tougher hides or are more clueless or something.
But I'm willing to let it lie there. I prefer to communicate directly to individuals rather than bug the beleagered and overworked moderators.
I also tend to figure that . . . if the shoe fits, wear it; if one can't stand the heat, avoid throwing flaming arrows; and if an institution can't stand the truth or even perceived truth . . . then it's probably been too resistent to correction and too dead for too long.
But that's just my biases.
I agree, that line about
Protestantism: wolves paving the way to hell in the name of Christ. (Just as St Paul warned)
was plenty over the line of hate-mongering. But it's nothing I'd want to really whine about except when there's a gross double standard. But even then, I don't think it's worth whining about.
Maybe emotions have been too invested in the issues or the symbols or the institutions and we all need some calm reflection. That's OK. Calm can be very good.
If the collectors of humor want some of my forbidden humor, they can email me. If they don't have my email and are known to me, they can ask me by FREEPMAIL.
How would my telling you not to post me again stop you from making the exact same argument to someone else? It wouldn't, and it hasn't on this and other threads. I don't understand your argument.
And as I said, this is NOT a thread about "Scriptural Truth" as some Protestants understand the phrase.
I have posted some of my "friends" about their confrontational approach.
I not that you utterly failed to ARGUE against my assertions. Yuu made counter assertions, but I already knew you disagreed.
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.