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/
Your track record grasping logical errors isn't very good. If you have a problem with what I said, address the specifics. What I posted was valid evidence and I pointed out at the end of my post I am unable to draw a conclusion from it, or any other I've seen. Others have used weaker evidence to come to the conclusion Mary remained ever virgin and stamped it as fact. There's no evidence at all for the light through the window miracle. It appears to me to be pure invention.
Yes. For one thing He could have written in an exception to His law. But it appears that He chose not to do that. Since Mary complied with the law it is reasonable to infer that the birth was of a normal type, and there was blood. We don't have to add anything special to arrive at that conclusion.
I don't think this is at all comparable to Jesus and His baptism. There we are given specific information in scripture, i.e. that He WAS God, such that He did not "need" to be baptized. With Mary, we are given no such information that leads to an exception.
That's an ad hominem.
If you have a problem with what I said, address the specifics.
I did. I pointed out that your argument is an argument from silence. One cannot justifiably determine that Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin from the absence of a statement that she did remain a perpetual virgin. But that's what you did. So I pointed it out.
Otherwise, you could justifiably conclude that Mary did not persevere in faith until death from the absence of a statement that she did persevere in faith until death. But no Protestants believe that Mary is in hell. So it just shows how you selectively pick and choose the arguments from silence that serve your pet theological theory.
-A8
Only if you have no further information. But in this case, we *do* have further information. Therefore, "what is reasonable to infer given the absence of further information" is irrelevant.
-A8
"Another argument from silence."
Come on, you want arguments from silence try Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption of Mary.
What were they comparing?
-A8
AMEN!
BTW, a study of how the canon was formed will reveal that the last to recognize it was Rome.
Maybe it was in all those documents that were destroyed when he was condemned 300 or so years after his death. :-)
Actually, the Revelation of John was questioned in the East as late as the 15th century.
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place 
Site, as I wrote, I don't read all the posts, and I did not see those. I do think that coarse language is a violation of scripture. I do trust the mod, though, to police that kind of thing and apparently it's been done. If there are other examples of posts that you find distasteful but have not been deleted, I'd like to have you point me to them.
Filth is filth and is wrong.
This might have been more peaceful for all concerned had it become a caucus thread.
LOL!
I see you're beginning to get a feel for how I think. :>)
Here's a hypothesis, then. :>)
Mary in heaven would always tell us to venerate her Son instead of herself. We would expect this from a mother proud of her Son.
Army or Marines?
I've got a preference. :>)
"That's an ad hominem."
We went over this before. The subject is a particular track record. It's your track record. The word "your" identifies the particular track record.
The full title for the logical fallacy is "ad hominem attack". It must be and attack, because praise would indicate agreement. Now in this case, there was no attack. I simply indicated your track record of erroneously IDing these things.
It is common and customary to use the word "your" to identify something in particular. For instance, "your zipper is open." It means a particular zipper is open. The word can only be used to indicate a particular zipper, if it belongs to the person being spoken to.
I have no desire, or intentions of dropping one of the most useful words in the English language, because anyone in particular can't grasp the meaning and cries "offensive!" The subject is not the person; it's what was said, or done!
"I pointed out that your argument is an argument from silence."
It is evidence as I said. It is not sufficient to make a conclusion, as I said.
"One cannot justifiably determine that Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin from the absence of a statement that she did remain a perpetual virgin."
There is no absence of a statement. The statement says effectively, "until the birth". A valid point has been made that the word is sometimes used to indicate nothing regarding the future beyond that point. The keyword is sometimes. Since the birth is specifically mentioned and Matthew knew the 2, I see the weight of this evidence as favoring the birth as the limit of virginity. The fact that I do not make a firm conclusion with this evidence makes your claim to logical fallacy groundless.
"Mary did not persevere in faith until death.
no Protestants believe that Mary is in hell.
That's very heartening to hear, because she couldn't have converted after death. The statemnt proves Mary was always faithful, regardless of the meaning of the word "until".
"Thou are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."
Simon was his name. Jesus told Simon that Satan wanted to sift him. He was protected, however. His bold statement of faith ties so well to his words that are among my favorites in all the Bible: "Where else would we go. You alone have the Word of Life."
The truth is that the book of Acts is really divided into 2 parts. The first part is Peter, and the 2nd is Paul.
Peter truly was the one on whose shoulders the Church was built. All a man has to do is read the Book of Acts to see that. He was tremendously used of the Lord in the establishment of the Church. After Paul's capture (death), we're told that Peter took the reins in the spreading of the word to the Gentiles; a mission he had allowed Paul to advance, though it was also his calling. We're told by some decent historical references that Peter first led the Church at Antioch, and that then he went to Rome and died there. There seems to be no dispute of that fact.
But the Church was up and running.
It was as Christ has said. He had built His Church on the foundation that was this man.
How far should we go with the realization that Christ had built His Church upon the shoulders of Peter? Peter at Jerusalem, Peter at Antioch, and Peter at Rome are all places where Peter's presence in establishing the foundation of the Christian Church is just a matter of record.
Peter accomplished his mission. Christ built His Church on that Rock just as He said He would. And that's the extent of what Christ said He would do.
"Thou are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."
Simon was his name. Jesus told Simon that Satan wanted to sift him. He was protected, however. His bold statement of faith ties so well to his words that are among my favorites in all the Bible: "Where else would we go. You alone have the Word of Life."
The truth is that the book of Acts is really divided into 2 parts. The first part is Peter, and the 2nd is Paul.
Peter truly was the one on whose shoulders the Church was built. All a man has to do is read the Book of Acts to see that. He was tremendously used of the Lord in the establishment of the Church. After Paul's capture (death), we're told that Peter took the reins in the spreading of the word to the Gentiles; a mission he had allowed Paul to advance, though it was also his calling. We're told by some decent historical references that Peter first led the Church at Antioch, and that then he went to Rome and died there. There seems to be no dispute of that fact.
But the Church was up and running.
It was as Christ has said. He had built His Church on the foundation that was this man.
How far should we go with the realization that Christ had built His Church upon the shoulders of Peter? Peter at Jerusalem, Peter at Antioch, and Peter at Rome are all places where Peter's presence in establishing the foundation of the Christian Church is just a matter of record.
Peter accomplished his mission. Christ built His Church on that Rock just as He said He would. And that's the extent of what Christ said He would do.
This is new. Are you acknowledging as true what all early Church writings that spoke on the matter have stated? That Peter traveled to and was martyred in Rome.
Actually, neither; though I do work with the military a lot. :) But, I do have a preference as well; albeit one that still has great admiration for the other group.
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.