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/
the media won't print anything good about what christians are doing (and suffering) all over the world.
All too true. We do however have a great deal written about many saints over many many hundreds of years. And reading about them is a very valuable effort in improving our spiritual condition.
"Ecclesia' is the term used for the sum total of our spiritual practices, prayers, sacraments, sacred texts, writings of and by the saints and Early Fathers and the structure of the church.. These comprise our spiritual 'hospital' for curing those maladies which obstruct our vision and knowing of God.
Another way to see the Saints we're referring to is as valuable assistance in our spiritual health.
It's true that the great majority of saints we know little or nothing about. However, this doesn't diminish the value of those about whom we do.
Or we figure if a little feels good a lot would feel great.. and off we go into addiction. I like the framing of sin as the abuse of our God given instincts. Gluttony, lust..
I remember the first time I heard, in RCIA I believe, the phrase "the glamour of sin." Yep, I thought, that nails it alright..
The test is to learn the lesson with the minimum amount of damage to ourselves and others. I flunked that one.
The title is APOKALUYS IWANNOU, Revelation of John.
Or, to paraphrase the Chambers devotion today:
There is nothing wrong with our instincts. How we apply them can be; the intent is what counts.
Yep, instincts are good, necessary, God-given, when used rightly.
It's the ABuse of instincts that causes such suffering.
As I'm seeing it, part of asceticism is strengthen our ability to use instincts properly in a healthy manner, and to gain the freedom of restraint as it were.
Do you think this is a proper way, or one way at least to view it?
That's hairsplitting in today's world. Many/most of the lost know that we say Christ is God. But if you're talking about early Christian witnesses, it would seem to me that the ultimate blasphemy (to a lost person's ears) would be to use a term like "mother of God", implying Mary's preexistence. You cannot possibly tell me than an early lost person wouldn't take it that way. It would require a full explanation, no less so than "mother of Christ" would require to the same audience. The Jews went nuts at the thought of Jesus being God. On the same surface it would be the same for mother of God.
Finally, why on earth are you making such a big deal out of this? Do you enjoy arguing with others?
Actually, the tale of the tape on this thread would show that I have not been one to make a federal case of this. I have made several comments, but I have not been one to scream bloody murder. I have said Theotokos is fine with a full explanation. I would just use other terms first in witnessing. This isn't an I'm right/you're wrong issue for me like so many are. :) I just have some concern that Mary could be seen by the lost as being something she was not.
And of course I enjoy arguing with others. I'm a lawyer. :) I only hope that those with whom I have had these conversations have found it as enjoyable, educational, and beneficial as I have.
Wow, and yet He created them! That's like saying God has 'illegitimate' children that He wants nothing to do with! (I know that's what the Reformed believe)
Sure, He created all of them, but becoming a child of God is a right only granted by God to some, such as in the verses I posted to Kolo. It has nothing to do with the reprobate being "illegitimate" or His wanting nothing to do with them. God uses his creations to serve His purposes, both the elect and the reprobate. He also loves His children, the elect.
No one but God created them. No one but God gave them life. And now he doesn't want them? What message does that send?
When is "now"? When God DID create them, did He know anything about their ultimate end? Yet, He created anyway. Why did He do that? Was He hoping that He would be wrong? Of course not. Before He lifted a creative finger, God knew that He was going to create billions of future inhabitants of Hell. He even knew each of them by name. That's just an inescapable fact. What is so unsettling about this?
And HE decided who will be His and who won't, correct?
Yes, not only that, He did so without regard to any decisions by any men. God's decisions were solely within His will and sovereignty.
FK: "The other children are not His responsibility."
He created them!
Yes, He created them. What are God's responsibilities to all men for the fact of creating them, and on what do you base your answer?
All mankind are His creation. Man was made in His image and Likeness.
All true. It's also true that most of those images and likenesses will wind up in Hell. How does this translate to what God "owes" us?
We're covering the history of mankind, and we're only up to Day 2.
Well, it's already been discussed how he would hardly have been alone in thinking them uninspired, even among saints. For example, Jerome caved (in his deeds), Luther didn't, but they were of a like mind on the issue of inspiration. There is also the matter that the Jews themselves threw them out well before they were canonized in any sense. Of course non-Christian Jews will throw out the entire NT, but that is apples and oranges compared to their view of the OT.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw
Absolutely. There is also Herod.
Acts 12:23 : 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
Pretty cool that he was eaten by worms FIRST. This is old school. :)
Nah. Melanchthon thought of Luther as his "spiritual father". But it doesn't matter. I don't thank Melanchthon and I don't thank Luther either, on this subject. The Spirit determined what the scriptures would be. Not any man or group of men.
Thank you for the quotes from this and his Homily. I must respectfully say, though, that I found his analysis surprisingly weak. He begins by asserting a hypothesis out of thin air:
This He said, that they might strive to become sheep. Then by mentioning what they should obtain, He maketh these men jealous, so as to rouse them, and cause them to desire such things.
Then, I thought he attempted to "prove" it by somehow showing that the essence of the passage is just an expression, and that what the passage is really all about is Jesus asserting that He is equal with God. Maybe I got lost in the pronouns, but this argument seemed to be 100% opinion to me, not persuasive at all. Were this God's true goal, it makes the entire passage extraordinarily misleading to the innocent reader. It would make it just another in a very long list of passages in which the plain text had zero to do with the Apostolic interpretation.
And then from the Homily:
"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost, then are we exposed, ready to be snatched away, as a “bowing wall, and a tottering fence” (Ps. lxii. 3.); ...
Just the opening statement tells me everything I really need to know about this man on this subject. First, with all due respect, right out of the chute he is blatantly misleading. He says "As long as we are in the hand of God ..." and then connects that to John 10:28. It isn't even close:
John 10:28 : 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. KJV
The preface is an outside conclusion he has drawn from somewhere, not this scripture. The reader who didn't bother to look up the verse would be very misled.
The next obvious problem is that he immediately dismisses the only thing he did accurately quote "no one is able to pluck us out". He says, in effect, that given this God must have a strong hand, but when we prove stronger and leap from it, then ... To me, this is absurd on its face.
But I do appreciate your showing these passages to me. I'm sort of laughing at myself because I can't remember the last time I had this visceral a reaction to one of these. :)
Doesn't look like election or predestination or some eternal security to me. Indeed, from +John Chrysostomos' understanding, it is quite the opposite.
Yes, this might explain it. :) Is it correct then that the Orthodox do not hold to any notion of election or predestination?
***Pretty cool that he was eaten by worms FIRST. This is old school. :)***
Sounds like a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark!
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." -- Colossians 3:16-17
Further, Paul doesn't say to do anything in the name of anyone other than Jesus Christ.
What wonderful verses to ponder. "The word of Christ", not just the red letters but the black letters are the Word of Christ. So first it is a proof text of His diety because most often the Bible is called The Word of God. We know "The Word of Christ" to be the same thing as "The Word of God". But it also puts ALL scripture at the same level. So many people, usually of very weak faith, quote Jesus as if the words in red are the most true. Paul's words, John's words, Moses' words are all just as much the Word of Christ.
Excellent supplement to the verses in Revelation about not adding or subtracting a jot or a tittle.
Therefore I give you all doctrines about Mary being immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, ever virgin, co-mediator, co-redeemer, hearer of prayers, intercessor to the intercessor. These are a lot more than jots or tittles.
So "Holy Tradition" is big and the bible is just a little thing encompased by "Holy Tradition". GASP!
I am not sure there is 'freedom' in restraint. It would seem just the opposite. Restraint from abuse, however, is freedom from evil.
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.