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/
There. That's better.
Regards
"This is one of my favorite quotes from the late Pope John Paul ll.... "
WOW. I love it. I dig the 'surprised by the Gospel' part. That really speaks of the salvation experience.
Scripture and the Fathers command prayers and oblations for the departed, and the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio") in virtue of this tradition not only asserts the existence of purgatory, but adds "that the souls therein detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." That those on earth are still in communion with the souls in purgatory is the earliest Christian teaching, and that the living aid the dead by their prayers and works of satisfaction is clear from the tradition above alleged. That the Holy Sacrifice was offered for the departed was received Catholic Tradition even in the days of Tertullian and Cyprian, and that the souls of the dead, were aided particularly "while the sacred victim lay upon the altar" is the expression of Cyril of Jerusalem quoted above. Augustine (Serm.. clxii, n. 2) says that the "prayers and alms of the faithful, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar aid the faithful departed and move the Lord to deal with them in mercy and kindness, and," he adds, "this is the practice of the universal Church handed down by the Fathers." Whether our works of satisfaction performed on behalf of the dead avail purely out of God's benevolence and mercy, or whether God obliges himself in justice to accept our vicarious atonement, is not a settled question. Suarez thinks that the acceptance is one of justice, and alleges the common practice of the Church which joins together the living and the dead without any discrimination (De poenit., disp. xlviii, 6, n. 4). - New Advent on Purgatory
It does raise the question how does the Church knows who is in heaven and who is in purgatory? Did Pope John Paul go straight to heaven? Did he spend some time in purgatory? When does he become an "official" saint? Actually, I think the Mormons are a little easier to understand.
I'm not saying that I subscribe to those views, I just threw them out as possibilities. As far as I know the Church has never accepted Darwinism, it just doesn't see anything prior to the Creation of Man as essential to Salvation. You might want to see if you can find a strong Catholic theologian with a science background, they are out there but depending on where you live they may be tough to find.
Really?
I thought the magesterical; the traditions; Mary . . . et al
held equal sway or at least deciding sway in LOTS of situations, if not most all???
Puzzling.
There's NOTHING SUPERSTITIOUS
about TRUSTING SCRIPTURE to say what it means; mean what it says and to be applicable accordingly.
= = =
I have yet to see anything remotely close to effectively challenging the above.
Depends.
Sola Scriptura means, to me, that the Bible is completely sufficient to establish me in a relationship with God and see me to maturity in God and to eternity with God.
That does NOT mean, Holy Spirit is flushed and that Scripture is ever without Holy Spirit's involvment.
Holy Spirit, however, tends to be a still small voice easiliy overridden in many lives by magestericals local and far; full bladders; TV noise . . . and a million other priorities.
Nevertheless, when the focus is God's Word and seeking God's face for God's priorities for the individual and the day--then Holy Spirit is quite responsive in assisting in leading into all Truth AS CHRIST SET UP AND DECLARED HE WOULD.
"The bible says that God made mankind a little lower than the angels. Some rat creature is not "a little lower than the angels," nor is it made in God's image. The Pope obviously had some other agenda in mind when he issued that opinion."
This is my fear as well. I hear that the RCC doesn't claim the pope's infallibility 'except in special circumstances'..... I was just wanting to guage what overall Catholic sentiment was over this issue.....it just seems that the statement had political aims instead of aims to discern truth.
No, Sola Scriptura is a very Scriptural fact, principle, Biblical truth.
Please document your claim. +Athanasius considered some 'apocryphal' books in the Seoptuagint as non-canonical, but not all of them.
I'm not sure if science background is the answer when looking at theories of origin. The wisdom of man is something that I am really wary of, and I know that it is the Lord's pleasure to confound the wisdom of those who consider themselves wise apart from Him.
I'm serving in Germany right now. I'll be looking up some local Catholic priests soon.... it's just hard to find American ones.... english speaking ones.... I'm sure there are a few chaplains on the bigger posts and bases.
Thanks!
But we are all equal in the eyes of God. From Pope to prince to maid to Mary herself. All who claim God as their savior are equal.
jo kus-SO WERE THE GOSPELS... Have you torn them out of your Jewish Bible yet?
The gospel (or New Testament) isn't what is being discussed. It is the Old Testament. Some would have us believe that there were many versions of the Old Testament at the time of our Lord Jesus. This is simply not the case. At least I have not been shown any valid references making this claim.
To seek outside what God has given you (let alone make it up)will have consequences.
= =
And has had already and will have much more so than ever before in history in these closing years of history as we've known it.
I'm sure at the larger bases like Ramstein there are plenty of Catholic chaplains.
yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
= = =
imho, That should be a SCREAMING warning for any believer in ANY large Christian organization.
Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Purgatory is a superstition. Prayers to the saints is a superstition. Sola Scriptura is merely a method of discerning the truth by using scripture as the final authority.
You may disagree with it, but it is not a "superstition".
= = =
INDEED! INDEED! INDEED!
This thread may take the Olympic gold medal for sloppy use of language . . . except, of course, when folks want to get prissy over minute distinctions.
The pope had a revelation that contradicted scripture. You can believe God or you can believe a man.(talk about confusion!) We don't know why or how he had this revelation, he has not said.
It is no small thing. Every one of us must choose this day whom we are to serve. As for me and my house, we will serve God.
What all this had to do with Christians is-- nothing
= = =
Indeed.
God is holy.
He is not prissy nor lacking in 'common sense' . . . in a sense . . . LOL.
It is like you allude: the Catholic teaching is that God is the author of all seen and unseen, and that Adam and Eve are actual not collective or metaphorical parents of man. It is possible to understand the book of Genesis in the sense that the 6 days were periods of indeterminable length, and that evolution was used by God as a method of creation. It is further possible to understand the creation of man as a process that involved evolution so long as the first man and woman in terms of ensoulment are Adam and Eve. It is also possible to read the Genesis traditionally and literally.
My personal opinion is traditional. I think, evolution of species is junk science designed to indoctrinate atheism, and that is does not belong in public schools. Whoever wants his kids to "learn" that junk should pay for it himself.
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.