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/
That is the conversation I recall as well. We also had a conversation based upon Jesus being a part of what he was in full, but that was a sidebar. Annalex and I asked you about the Greek and I thank you for your honest and forthright answer. I purposely never used it because I considered it bad form to ask something in a private Freep mail and then try to use it against the side I'm opposing (that I had just asked the question to).
"Annalex and I asked you about the Greek and I thank you for your honest and forthright answer. I purposely never used it because I considered it bad form to ask something in a private Freep mail and then try to use it against the side I'm opposing (that I had just asked the question to)."
B, my opinion on something like this is just that, my opinion and you are free to use my opinions any way you want! :) When The Church declares me a Father of the Church, you may quote me with authority (don't hold your breath).
Fair warning, though, Alex's Greek is likely better than mine! :)
Well, that's why I went to you an another source :) I could try to go to my Greek Prof if you like.
The verse tells them "do this and you will not fall." What this really means is that fall is possible and that it takes reminding oneself of Christ continually in order not to fall. In other words, you are not saved until you are saved (after you die).
I agree with "do this and you will not fall". All believers will do these things (perseverance). I think it really means that falling is hypothetically possible, and that no one should feel like he can rest on his laurels. In other words, POTS. One should do these things and be further confident for himself of the promises of assurance God also gives in other scriptures.
The real problem is that what +Peter is saying here is not exactly what +Paul was preaching in 'his' gospel. What I see in 2 Peter (a very late addition to the NT), and other later additions, is that the Church is trying to attenuate Pauline teaching.
I just see the Peter verse as coming at the same thing from another angle. I don't think it contradicts Paul in any way. If Paul can be seen as being in concert with James, then he certainly can be with Peter here.
That, to me, your post put me on the couch and then projected your fantasies - or your view of what your fantasies would be if you were Catholic. I was saying this not my fantasy, it's obviously one that does exist somewhere in you; i.e. a projection.
To save your time, here's your post, truncated:
"Why of course, I'm just honoring Mary.. let's bump it up a bit--she BIRTHED GOD!… we'll keep that in mind, except when we are so caught up enraptured with this graven image of Mary that we no longer bother about keeping it in mind . . . But of course, we are ONLY honoring Mary. I know that. The priest knows that--ask him. All my fellow RC's know that . . . but twixt the neurons . . . runs this other script that feeds my flesh so well; comforts me so well; is so much more ACCESSIBLE, that's it--I can relate to Mary so much better and so much easier--MOTHER--THE SUPREME EARTH-MOTHER; MOTHER OF HEAVEN; MOTHER OF GOD--what a comfort… Let's deal only with Mary. So comforting. So accessible. So reachable. So our sizeable. Except then we need to elevate her to be able to do all our magical requests…"
Don't forget, Peter called Paul's epistles "Scripture." He noted the strong meat in them and the potential for abuse, but certainly didn't see Paul's words as another gospel.
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ahhhh.
That one.
I have no idea in my current network, which RC's would have such or close to such. I just know that in my 60 years, a number have been over that sort of line.
Glad you're not one.
Sure. I recognize it too. It's the "Catholics are neurotics" school of apologetics.
It's also in the soft sciences - a sub-branch of the "All Religious are Neurotics" School of psychology.
Hope you can avoid their group sessions.
"The Jews didn't associate evil with Satan. The Christians do. The roots of that are in the 'deuterocanonical' books. Judaism considers Satan a loyal and obedient servaht of God. Ihe is portrayed that way in the OT."
Jesus is the one who identified the devil as Satan in Matt. 4 during the temptation and taught the disciples that Satan was the enemy, the accuser. He identified Satan as Lucifer of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 when He said He saw him fall from heaven Luke 10:18. He prayed that god would keep Peter from the evil one. It was not the apocrypjal books that taught the disciples; it was Jesus. In fact, there is only one obscure quote from the apocryphal books in the whole bible and that by Jude concerning someone named Enoch. All the other books are mentioned with authority, but Enoch is not cited as scripture. It is mentioned in passing as Paul did with the pagan poets and philosophers.
"Judaism considers Satan a loyal and obedient servaht of God. Ihe is portrayed that way in the OT"
That's not what 1 Chron. 21:1, Job 1:6, 12, Psalms 109:6 and Zech. 3:2 say. Satan is considered the adversary provoking David, Job and Israel and the Lord rebukes him.
Quick question on this part:
From man's POV, the elect spend the first part of their lives being "lost" and on a road to hell. Then God touches the elect and they accept Christ and are "saved". So technically, the action of accepting Christ is something that is done and makes a difference.
Are you of the irresistable grace school? Or is there a choice possible at this point?
thanks very much for your reply.
I was the token Christian in my class at a very out in front school on the cutting edge of a lot of good work but also a lot of bad politics.
One of my profs was a 'fellow' at the Carter White House. Several of my profs trained the head trainers at Tavistock.
Been there, done that.
Survived and gave as good as I got. So much so that a Chaplain was upset with me once in the Navy because 2-3 people came to a saving knowlege of Christ--even though it had occurred out of group time in our free time.
Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint Old Testament, and were therefore considered Scripture (remember +James and "all scripture is profitable..?"). When they quoted them or described events in the NT found only in them, they were quoting Scripture.
The Judaism of Christ's era was not the Judaism you are thinking of. The Essenes and the Sadducees had different theologies and considered different books as Scripture but were every bit Jewish and Hebrew.
The "Jewish Canon" you have in your Protestant Bible is the Bible of the Pharisees, not of all the Jews. It just so happens that only the Pharisees survived and morphed into rabbinical Judaism known to us today, which leads many to presume that theirs was the true Jewish Canon.
It just so happens, also, that many Jews used the Greek-language Septuagint because they were hellenized, the way American Jews read only English, because they are americanized and don't speak Hebrew.
In fact the Sadducees were the priestly class in charge of the Temple. Their canon consisted only of the five books of Moses! No Prophets and no Pslams! Threir theology was very different from the Pharisees' theology, denying resurrection and angels among other things.
And what they used did not include the deuterocanonicals. Three hundred years later the Greek Church fathers decided to add some more and that started the problems
LOL! The Septuagint was started by Jewish scholars three centuries before Christ and finished in the 2nd century BC.
The "Greek fathers" had nothing to do with what books were in it. It was a Jewish Bible translated presumably from Hebrew into Greek by the Jews, for the Jews who spoke only Greek in Alexandria.
The Church fathers included deteroncanonical books of the Septuagint because they were there all along. The fathers were also not all Greek.
Very good. You know the errors and dangers of attributing religious views to psychology up-front and personal then.
Thanks for your reply.
In Job, Satan (ha-satan) is identified as one of the angels (sons of God) on two occasions. His job was to accuse and disrupt, to tempt so that, as Judaism explains it, man can make choices.
Finally, you'll have to take the issue up with Judaims. They emphatically deny that Satan is a fallen angel, that angles can rebel,or have free will, and emphatically assert that as far as Judaims is concerned Satan is a loyal angel of God.
Nowhere in the OT is there any connection made between Satan and Lucifer or satan and the 'devils" (as KJV calles them), or demons.
You also must take into consideration that Jewish demonology and anegology was notshared by the priestly caste of Sadducees who believed neither, and whose Canon was the Five Books of Moses.
Because he repented.
True.
However, just because there are real hazards
does not equal that
there is no utility to the perspective of psychology in examining religious values, beliefs and their relationship to behavior. My dissertation was smack in the middle of that.
You mean one could inflect "theou" in genitive but not inflect "stylos", and still refer stylos to theos? (I am using stylos and not the other noun and adjective because I am fairly sure of how to inflect stylos). I am not disputing you, just trying to improve my already nearly perfect Greek.
Be it as it may, it is a strange description of God as a pillar and ground, in a supporting role to truth.
Of course, other references to the Church (or at least the apostles) receiving the truth from the Holy Ghost still stand.
You forgot the Psalms 109:6 and Zech. 3:2, "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" quotes.
Because the scripture does not teach that.
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.