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/
Because she is His mother. Read Pope Leo.
Yes and no.
Those then saw a human box bearing the Creator of all that is.
Some have seen visions and visitations of Him since--e.g. Paul on the Damasus road and others of our era.
That's quite different than seeing the face OF FATHER GOD ALMIGHTY. By all accounts, HE IS QUITE STINGY with allowing such phenomena--both in Scripture and by all accounts since the Canon was formed.
So, in a very technical respect, it is simply NOT TRUE that Mary had anything to do with us seeing THE FACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD. And ascribing merit or benefit to or from her related to such a falacious untruth is further . . . nonsense, imho.
Well said. And you do most admirably at that. Congrats.
I could care less about one man's opinion. Peter said, Obey God not man.
... defend God's Church from all attack.
Your friends are attacking the Church!
Uhhhh. NO.
Christ gave her care to John.
Some might even quite reasonably that He did so in a fairly strongly END OF AN ERA; closing off of an earthly relationship sort of way.
The scripture should be read in the company of the Chruch fathers and with attention to the context. Usually it is clear form the context if the speach is metaphorical or direct. No, we don't see Christ as a literal door, because the context does not call for such reading, and it never occurred to anyone in the Church to read it that way. In John 6, however, the literal meaning of "flesh to eat" is challenged by the disciples, and Jesus clarifies that he means it literally and not metaphorically: "meat indeed".
. . . a closing off of the MOTHER/SON relationship.
It seems to me, that her brief was as all of ours post Cross and REsurrection:
She was from thenceforth to see Him as Isaiah . . .
HIGH AND LIFTED UP; HIS TRAIN FILLED THE TEMPLE; WOE AM I A WOMAN OF UNCLEAN LIPS.
work out those other projections?
Is it your hypothesis that I was asleep during the 3,000 plus hours of intense group process groups?
Surely the Catholics have a patron saint for this sort of thing. Someone from the Wiggles, perhaps?
Has sternly pontificating about posts one's skipped now become a custom around here?
I missed that memo.
It is a very slick out, though. I must remember that one.
God will make abundantly clear to all of us
WHERE we EACH have problems and where we don't
vis a vis HIS TRUTHS
vs
doctrines of man;
traditions of man
doctrines and traditions of demons
theology from our frijoles gas pains vs from Scripture.
Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.He does not single her out as someone who should not be concerned with His work. Rather, He says that He himself is not of the mind to begin His ministry. There is no rebuke.
Second, the Mother of God knows ahead of time that the miracle will be forthcoming at her request, as she instructs the waiter to obey Christ.
This sets up the model where the Mother of God is attentive to our needs and asks Christ with confidence that His grace be directed at us.
When will that reference to Pope Leo be coming?
Not different. Christ "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature", Col. 1:15.
He says that He himself is not of the mind
This is massively unbiblical. Jesus said that he came to do the Father's will, not his own. Therefore, no one but the Father could give him directions.
He gave her to the "disciple He loved", and him to her.
Surely you are not going to argue that His dying words on the cross were not of cosmic significance. I see us all there at the foot of the cross. So should you.
Thanks, that is clearer. It seems to include Saints in Heaven in Communion in part but not whole, in a clumsy way of putting it.
The key exclusion I see is intercessory prayer. In the Church, Saints in Heaven are included in this long long before St. Augustine, from the beginning.
Scriptural references are, I believe: Hebrews 12:1 and Revelation 5:8.
So I see this section as saying Saints in Heaven are included, but we can't be sure how much interaction, "The holy dead act upon the living, and, it may be, are reacted upon in ways we do not understand."
The part of prayers of intercession rejects them because "We do not go to them to ask them to intercede for us with the Father, for we believe there is but one Mediator.."
However, maybe we would agree this doesn't follow logically. It would reject ALL intercessory prayer. I don't think Reformed Theology does this?
So it leaves me a bit clearer but also more confused. Saints in Heaven are part of Communion, clearly and deeply part. They act/react/contemplate us in ways we do not know, but "they are interested in us and concerned for our happiness." However, we are not to include them in intercessory prayer, because there's "one Mediator between God and man."
Unless there's a different definition of intercessory prayer in Reformed theology, in which case I'm thrice confused.
You're right the last section is key to what I was asking about. And I do appreciate your time and effort in posting it.
And, if I'm reading it right, yes, it might be a good idea to change some of your "habits and language."
:)
Thanks very much..
Why, the keys can be taken metaphorically, as the ability to decide on matters of salvation -- to "bind and loose". I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that understands the Pearly Gate and the key as a physical gate and physical key.
Read John 2. He says, "my hour has not yet come", then does it anyway.
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.