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/
CURRENTLY TRYING TO GET THIS PULLED FROM THAT THREAD. I just went direct to your post without reading the heading and then posted a reply. Sorry. I didn't realize it was a caucus thread.
= = = =
I read every word thoughtfully with as much of an open mind as possible on the topic. I thought perhaps there's something I've missed. Didn't find anything I'd missed.
Doesn't wash. At all.
The cheribim and Moses example doesn't wash. God instructed those specific things. They were clear exceptions for God's reasons, ordered of God. Others are not.
To me, veneration is an excuse . . . a kind of soft-____ label for Jr worship.
I can venerate the wood pulp and ink I call my Bible teling myself all the time I'm truly worshipping the Living Word. Doesn't make it true; doesn't make it right.
I can venerate fishing as unto God on Sunday morning (though that would be a big stretch given my lack of affinity for the sport) But it wouldn't make it right.
AMEN!
CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED.
AND ARISEN, RISEN INDEED!
To truly repent means to examine sin enough to "change our mind" about it, to see through the glamour of sin - metanoia.
I agree, true repentance must include "reckoning".
You have publicly asked me not to post to you, so I can presume you are including me among those who do not post with "respect and courtesy."
Please provide any post of mine to you wherein I spoke to you on a disrespectful and discourteous personal level.
If you can't provide one, please retract your personally offensive statement.
As the Religion Moderator has repeatedly instructed, we may criticize the belief but not the believer.
Beautifully stated.....Thank you
Okay. I call foul.
You, wmfights, told me not to post to you again.
Now you are agreeing with those who say asking such a thing means the asker has no argument?
Thank you tons, Dear Heart . . . for your kind words.
God's best to you.
These are your words, directed at me:
There you go again, bringing false witness. And what was the false witness that you accused me of bearing? I indirectly suggested that you might be calling my veracity into question, after you wrote something like "...since Mad Dawg says it, it must be so, lol."
I know I'm not the one to whom you addressed your complaint about a "personally offensive statement" but it's easy to find examples of your attacking people personally.
The problem for you position is that, throughout the LXX, 'ta ethnE' used as a translation of goyim, and usually Englished as 'the nations' or 'the gentiles'.
The problem is that the same term (goyim) is also used for the non-believing Jews/Semites in the Old Testament. All pagans were goyim.
+Paul changed the term to mean non-Jewish Christians.
But the real problem is that Christ neither taught, sought nor brought goyim to His ministry, nor did He direct the original Apostles to preach to and convert the goyim. Never. His ministry was for the Jews and about the Jews and by the Jews; now you tell me it suddenly changed in Mat 28:19 because of the Greek word (the Greek word for God's justice is also a poor translation of Hebrew, so this is not the only transaltion fallacy).
But one thing is certain: He not once suggested that Judaism is to 'morph' into something esle, to dispense with dietary laws, with circumcision, etc. Not once.
And you are wrong: the reason the detail of the Ethiopian court offical being a eunuch was important: eunuchs could not convert to Judaism
Apprently, to Christian Judaism yes. This was part of the reason the Jewish Christians were seen as heretics in Israel.
I respect that. Not every class has to be an introductory class taught before a hostile audience. It is not necessary to invite to every meal harpies who want not so much to eat as to make the food so foul that no one can eat it. Public fora are not limited to apologetics and forensics on basic points.
It gets my attention that a Protestant asked me to quit posting to him, and you all found nothing there worthy of comment, but when an EO or a RC objected to flamboyant mockery of his beliefs, you start saying it must mean he has no reason on his side.
Sometimes the discussion is just pointless and soemtimes it is best to stop it before it reaches boiling point.
So, the effect is the same: we hear man's "official truth" of the Bible. For how is one to know who is hearing the true truth?
The reason I gave you was different, there's no value in reviewing it, other than, basically, I thought it best for me and for you and for the others on the forum.
We all need to make a special effort here to be civil and respectful. It's difficult to discuss anything of import on this medium and religion is the toughest. I include myself in this. Internet forums are particularly prone to misunderstandings and outbursts, adding religion to the mix makes it even more volatile.
If things get too angry, let's try to back off from each other.
I know we all value these discussions and what we learn from them. We need to try to chill it for a bit, or this thread is headed for the pulled column.
imho,
Learning to hear God well and accurately is a process.
Watching fruit and fruitfulness is often a key.
Following after peace is a key.
But God seems to insist on as well as enjoy our leaning into Him to hear Him better--and directly.
There is no substitute.
No short cuts.
No one else can do it for you.
I'm not sure of the precise theology, but as a Texan, I reckon you're right.
"Simple answer : Adam and Eve were made/placed in a world already populated with people."
There's a ton of practical reasons for that--God insisting on each individual developing an intimate dialogue--beyond Christ dying for it and God delighting in it--more than sufficient reasons, each--
in any era but especially in this one . . . take no thought what to say to officials as it will be given you at the time [by Holy Spirit].
Thankfully, Holy Spirit is well able to make Himself heard even by the stone deaf. But it seems to work a lot better, more gracefully and easier with less stress etc.
when folks have been practicing listening and obeying HOLY SPIRIT DIRECTLY--for decades.
I'm not sure if this is sophistic or not, but if assurance isn't assured, how can it really be assurance?
I guess, answering my own question, some assurance or a sometime assurance would be better than none in the Protestant view?
"CURRENTLY TRYING TO GET THIS PULLED FROM THAT THREAD. I just went direct to your post without reading the heading and then posted a reply. Sorry. I didn't realize it was a caucus thread."
Doesn't bother me! :)
Your observations are what I expected. I am glad you read it though as I think its important that we understand each other as much as possible always recognizing that in the end we may disagree profoundly. +Gregory Palamas' comments on why we use icons is a short classic exposition of the theology of Orthodoxy on that subject. Christian Iconography such as we would recognize it, can be traced to the 3rd century, so its very old in the Church. The arguments you and others advance against them are among the same used in the 8th and 9th centuries by the Iconoclasts, those of +Gregory Palamas a condensed version of those of the Iconodules who, as you know, ultimately triumphed at the 7th Ecumenical Council.
Bottom line, as I said before, this is one of the devotions of The Church which simply isn't for those who are outside.
this is one of the devotions of The Church which simply isn't for those who are outside.
= = =
Thanks for your kind reply . . . however, from my perspective, the above is not a kind part.
I and those of my perspective are no more outside THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL, than you are.
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.