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/
If you'd like to discuss, we'll need to at least attempt to present each other's doctrine and dogma honestly.
If you'd prefer flame wars, I think there are others you can engage with.
I don't have a problem with it. You however will not heed his admonition re contentiousness.
Paul was talking cultural norms. The most important part of what he said was But in the final analysis, if anyone one wanted to be contentious... It was not an apostolic or church custom
Luke 4:23
= = = =
GWARSH! WHAT A SHOCK!
You mean St Paul was being reasonable and displaying a lot of common horse sense
INSTEAD
of being prissy, pontifical, pharisaical and censorious of others?
My, my, what a novel Christian idea!
I've already explained that I have no problem with schismatic anti-Christian sects opposing St Paul; no contention at all.
I'm simply interested to lay out what Christians say and beleive (and St Paul was clear that Christians would say and practice the commandments he writes which are from God, and those who do not are false prophets) so that no Christians are deceived by such schismatic anti-Christian sects.
When the throne reaches past the navel
= = =
Hmmmmm . . .
Of course, that comes from III STEPHEN 9:3, doesn't it! LOL.
Friends, this thread is heading toxic again.
This is not good for any of us.
It's just like St Paul warned in Acts; wolves trying to tell the faithful to follow them and abandon St Paul's teachings...
Not only that-- there were female disciples. Some didn't even help with the dishes but sat at Jesus' feet. And probably had her hat off too!
If yopu have a question about Catholicism, state it plainly and I will be happy to answer. If you want a flame war, find a thread appropriate for your intellectual level.
So where have I misrepresented RCism?
all as in many not every.
I'm sure that while some are simply con artists who've been exposed in droves, there's some who genuinely work with Satan to steal away faithful Christians.
If you'll read Paul closely you'll note that he states being contentious isn't a Christian custom.
= = =
hmmmmmm
Can you clarify why you'd assert something not written in scripture in order to attack something which is expressed in 282 words in scripture?
Talk to your buddy kawaii as evidenced most recently in 9450.
I really would prefer this thread be left on the board and even open to discourse and dialogue.
Name calling of us protesties is not a good way to achieve that goal.
Nor, I suspect, is doing it deliberately or provoking it deliberately to achieve removal a good way to maintain posting privileges.
but I'm just guessing.
LOL. Note the similarity...
in all truth i would far rather see droves of priestly garb shops and never a one church suggesting it 'ok to be gay'...
the priestly garb shops is just plain better.
i'm hardly being contentious
= = =
Others may be the best judge of that.
What an astute comparison.
Shocking.
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.