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/
Kosta wrote : Jo, I am trying to think like a Catholic. :)
I will presume that the smiley face at the end nullifies the implied comment that Catholics contradict themselves... Sorry if I appear cautious, I've been "away" at some other sites where the name calling towards Catholics is NOT so subtle...
As you know, whether Mary felt child pains OR whether she died are matters of opinion, not dogma.
In order to maintain her virginity, she would not have given Birth by ordinary means through an open birth canal.
Virginity, metaphysically and spiritually speaking, is not defined as giving birth through the birth canal. Otherwise, women with C-sections are considered virgins! No doubt, lack of virginity refers to the addition of a man in a child's conception. Thus, there is not a need to define "virginity" as "opening the birth canal" as Mary's conception of Jesus was a singular event that will not be repeated. We don't define by the exception.
And if we can believe that God became Incarnate within her without a seed or carnal event, then it is equally valid to presume that the Birth was equally a mystery that did not violate her in any way.
I agree, and we should thus maintain this as a matter of opinion, WHILE maintaining consistency all the while. IF Mary died, then "sin" would not be the reason why Mary avoided birth pains. However, I do not make the connection of virginity to giving birth. Thus, I don't see the need to say that Mary, to maintain virginity, MUST have underwent a painless childbirth.
Besides, if she gave birth in the conventional manner, her blood would have mixed with the Blood of Her Child(!), and a normal human birth would have spilled that precious Blood, desecrating it!
It's a known medical fact that the baby and the mother have different blood. Often, they even have different blood types. And how do you suppose the umbilical cord was cut? I think some people go a bit too far to protect the divinity of Christ and forgetting that He took on a human nature, one that includes sweating, crying and bleeding.
You are free to speculate, of course, but -- from an Orthodox point of view -- Mary's painless and mystical birth has nothing whatsoever to do with her being "second Eve."
I don't believe I made that point. I myself hold to the Immaculate Conception and the New Eve - while believing that Mary underwent a normal birth (having pain). Refering to the Second Eve points to her Immaculate Conception, a dogma, not to her painless child birthing of Jesus, an opinion.
If there is any contradiction in my statements, it was because I was making the argument from the Catholic point of view. :)
Two such comments in one post? Hmm. I've been insulted more directly before... The contradictions are based on one who claims Mary suffered no pain at childbirth - refering to Genesis and sin - while at the same time, claiming Mary died - again pointing to Genesis and sin. Is sin the reason woman suffer child birth pain? Is sin the reason why humans suffer death? Thus, your contradiction.
The Latin Church also teaches that her Birth was painless, which would, by necessity suggest that she was also immortal.
I am relatively well-versed in Catholicism and have not heard that one yet. It must not be a "well-circulated" teaching, maybe reserved for those of the curia. If true, it is obviously theological opinion, not an ordinary teaching of the Magesterium. It certainly is not in the Catechism.
Regards
Well, you may be on your way to becoming Orthodox, Jo. :) The issue of uncreated Grace (Orthodox view) versus "created" Grace (Latin view) is what separates us a lot more than Immaculate Conception!
Besides, God doesn't withold His Grace; he showers His blessings on the righteous and the unrighteous equally. We either accept it or reject it.
Man's nature was not "changed". Concupiscence is not part of our nature, although it is part of our experience. Our nature was wounded.
Otherwise, if sin was part of our nature, then Christ did not become "man"
Christ's human nature is that of pre-fall. He was not conceived or born in iniquity. Ours is changed by sin (rejection of God).
if sin was part of our nature
Propensity to sin is part of our fallen-nature. Our tendency is not to be or do good.
Being baptized infuses the life of Christ within us
Being baptized brings us into the Church, where we may find life at the end of this journey. We only get a "ticket" not a guarantee.
Does the Orthodox teach that man has the Spirit BEFORE baptism?
Infants have nothing! They are the poorest in spirit. How could they have spirit when they don't even know who they are? You could be baptized as an infant and raised as a Muslim and you'd never know the Spirit. The life we get through Baptism is in the world to come, if we persevere, if we imitate Christ and regain the likeness of God.
wm fights wrote: Not true. They recognized it after it had been put together.
Now. I would like to hear HOW they recognized it?
Regards
In fact I will not reply to your post.
I will not be drawn into THAT discussion! It is too esoterical. I admit that the differences between "created" and "uncreated" graces are something beyond the Patristic Fathers.
Besides, God doesn't withold His Grace; he showers His blessings on the righteous and the unrighteous equally. We either accept it or reject it.
After 12000 posts on the "mother of all threads", I'd thought you would have agreed that Catholics believe that as well...
Christ's human nature is that of pre-fall. He was not conceived or born in iniquity. Ours is changed by sin (rejection of God).
That is interesting. Isn't it a common axiom of the Church Fathers that Christ only saved what He became? That He redeemed only what He became incarnated as? Thus, Christ became man - the man of POST-FALL. He toiled. He sweated. He labored. He endured in a fallen world. These are all functions of the POST-Fall world. Christ was like us in all ways except sin. In other words, He CHOSE not to separate Himself from God by sin.
Propensity to sin is part of our fallen-nature. Our tendency is not to be or do good.
Propensity. But it is not OUR NATURE to sin. Our nature will be fulfilled in heaven - sinless. Our nature will not be changed. Concupiscence will be removed - inner temptations and desires to do things for ourselves. Our nature was created in the image of God - God who is Love. Love is self-giving, not selfish. Our nature is self-giving and selfless, as God's. Unfortunately, there is a disease attacking our nature, a sickness. It is caused by a lack of God's presence - original sin. Part of this disease includes a propensity to please self - the opposite of what God intends us to do (please others).
Being baptized brings us into the Church, where we may find life at the end of this journey. We only get a "ticket" not a guarantee.
I didn't say anything about entering heaven. But it is clear from Scriptures that one was baptized for the purpose of receiving the life of the Spirit. Do a word search under "baptism" or "waters of regeneration". Now, does this life remain with us throughout our lives? It doesn't follow.
Infants have nothing! They are the poorest in spirit. How could they have spirit when they don't even know who they are?
Ah, so a person must know God before the Spirit enters in? God takes the initiative, brother, not us. God freely enters whom He will, whether they are infants, children, or old men. Our faith doesn't bring the Spirit to us.
You could be baptized as an infant and raised as a Muslim and you'd never know the Spirit.
Again, it doesn't follow that having the Spirit within us means we KNOW the theology of the Holy Spirit. When one loves, they have the Spirit, whether they know anything about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
The life we get through Baptism is in the world to come, if we persevere, if we imitate Christ and regain the likeness of God.
Our life in the Spirit begins even NOW, brother. How else could one love their enemies or turn the other cheek? Anyone not abiding in Christ and His Spirit cannot love - but those who DO abide in Christ ALREADY have eternal life even now - Christ IS eternal life. Scriptures over and over present a "now, but not yet" picture of the life in the Spirit.
Regards
Great points. The Fall of Adam and Eve did something to mankind. Of that both East and West agree. It has always been interesting to me how the Eastern Churches handled it compared to the Western ones. A lot of the resultant differences between Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants came from St. Augustine. Which is sad, in that his views changed throughout his life and in many ways he's beliefs are not quite what any side makes him out to be.
I specifically said that you were NOT insulting me - with the addition of the smiley faces you added, I recognized that.
However, me bringing it up alerts you to the fact that one COULD take it as a subtle slap at "those changing Catholics". What would be your reaction if I made some sort of comment about the Orthodox "being fossilized and static, incapable of addressing the issues of today", but added a smiley face at the end? I take it that, you knowing me, you would understand it was not an insult, BUT, you would not be happy about it. I would expect a kind word of reprovement towards me to be careful. Please take my comments on this as a kind reprovement, not that our friendship has suffered or I have been insulted. The manner we last parted was not unfriendly and I have no intent to change that now.
We have discussed much together and have generally sided with each other throughout. If you believe I have changed for the worse as a result of my more recent "pen-pals", I apologize. By the grace of God, I believe I have been quite successful elsewhere in a very anti-Catholic setting - however, not without a price, apparently.
Brother in Christ
No doubt. But when one gets sick, does that mean how we define "man" changes? Does that mean that we are to define "man" as a rational being with a heart ailment? Metaphysically, man was created in the image of God. The disease that we call sin does not mean we are no longer made in the image of God. It means that something, the sickness, is preventing us from realizing our fulfillment.
Regards
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.The second is from Orthodox Wiki:In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
The original (or "first") sin was commited by Adam and Eve (see Book of Genesis Chapter 3). Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is physical death (in this world), only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin (see Book of Ezekiel Chapter 18). Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.Thus the Orthodox take issue with Catholics over the question of personal guilt being born by the descendant of Adam. But if we look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church we find the following statement:
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.Thus Catholics do not hold that we inherit the personal guilt or culpability of Original Sin. The Council of Trent (Session V) states it thus:405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice [emphasis added], but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his prosterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul [emphasis added], let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.The idea that we inherit the guilt of Original Sin can be found in Article 5 of the same session of the Council of Trent:
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only concealed or not imputed, let him be anathema.This however is a misleading, even if common, translation. The word that is translated above as "guilt" is in the original Latin "reatum." As I have pointed out in an earlier discussion about Purgatory, this does not actually mean "guilt", which in Latin is "culpa." Rather reatum is a technical legal term which refers to the status of a person charged or convicted of a crime. It is because there is no English equivalent that this term is usually rendered as "guilt." A discussion found in Peter Lombard's Sentences from the 12th century might illuminate the difference:
Some think original sin is the criminal status (reatum) of the penalty for the sin of the first man, that is, the debt (debitum) or enslavement (obnoxietatem) by which we have been enslaved and are bondmen to the temporal and eternal punishment for the actual sin of the first man: because for this, as they say, eternal punishment is owed by all, unless they are freed through grace. — According to their opinion it must be said that original sin is neither fault (culpam) nor punishment (poenam). They do not acknowledge that it is guilt (culpam). Also, according to them, it cannot be a penalty (poena), because if original sin is the debt of punishment, since the debt of punishment is not punishment, neither is original sin punishment. — Some of them also say that in Scripture original sin is often called criminal status (reatum); and here they understand 'reatum', as it is said, is the enslavement (obnoxietem) of punishment.For the sake of honesty I must state that Peter Lombard did not agree with this opinion but sided with St. Augustine that original sin is guilt (culpa). But the Council of Trent did not include the definition of St. Augustine and only mentioned reatum, not applying culpability of Original Sin to individuals.
(Liber II, Dist. XXX, Cap. 6)
Absolutely. We are not the humans God created. In fact, it is irreversible. Yet, God in his love, made it possible for us to have a second chance, which he did not extend to satan and his angles for whom there is no redemption.
This reminds us that the nature of their fall is viewed differently then ours: it is absolute. Ours isn't.
In fact, God created hell only for satan and his angels. That so many men will end up there is not God's doing, but ours.
[St. Augustine's] views changed throughout his life and in many ways he's beliefs are not quite what any side makes him out to be
The problem with St. Augustine are not his confessions but his Retractions. Not only are most people not familiar with them; they are almost impossible to find! Before he passed away, he actually recanted on a number of his hypotheses, enough to write a book with them.
So according to this, Ezekiel is anathema, because Ezekiel 18 contradicts this completely. Gen 3 is a parable, which explains why man is in this world. Adam displayed the same exercise of free will that anyone else might. Sin enters the world when the first one sins.
Death is simply a movement from one place to another. Each man was to determine their own destiny by their own sovereignty of will, just as Adam did.
Again. Only a minority believe that it was originally in Aramaic.
Second, I do have an advanced Seminary degree from a well respected institution. I have also taught college before.
Check your personal attacks. As long as they continue, our conversation is through.
Not the second time around, Jo. It doesn't matter. I was actually being honest. The smiley face was there to let you know that my intentions were not to insult you. But I was trying to think as I think a Catholic would think, clumsy as it may be.
What would be your reaction if I made some sort of comment about the Orthodox "being fossilized and static, incapable of addressing the issues of today", but added a smiley face at the end?
I think there is a difference between what I said and your statement, Jo. But if you said "I am trying to think like an Orthodox" while stating something we don't believe, I would have simply pointed out the error to you and probably say something like "you're not there yet, Jo. :)"
We have discussed much together and have generally sided with each other throughout. If you believe I have changed for the worse as a result of my more recent "pen-pals", I apologize
We still do agree on a lot of things, and even more so when we demystify our concepts in plain language. But we also disagree on very profound levels, even if they may seem almost trivial to someone outside the Church. There is nothing trivial or simple that managed to split the Church for one thousand years!
I am sorry you came out wounded from some other threads. Rest assured that we Orthodox (well, the majority of us) are not your adversaries. We have discussed many a topic and we have agreed on many more than disagreed. We have also been very frank and open with each other even if we vehemently disagreed. Families argue, but it doesn't mean they are not families.
You're the RC. What is the earliest council that was convened by Rome to declare what was Scripture?
For me it is through.
your choice
tautology
I have Augustine's Retractions (took a bit of work to find one), and it is funny how no one, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, really likes that book.
See, that is the problem. In some ways, how "man" is defined DID change. Neither of you, Catholic or Orthodox, would say that left alone with no input a society can be moral with out God. Mankind, after he removes revealed and natural law, can be the most horrible monster imaginable. Is that what we were from the pre fall Adam?
But at the same time, we are the same. Otherwise the Incarnation would be meaningless, and we would not be saved. What makes us human, in essence, must be the same as what made Adam human.
So what changed? The West has the concept of Original sin, the East talks of something similar. I personally like the way (as some EOC on FR have explained it) the Orthodox talk of an inherited infection of sin (Might not have phrased that right). But we are left with one of those paradox that our finite human minds can not quite get. In one sense, what we are remains what it was otherwise Jesus is not what we proclaim He is, True God and True Man. At the same time, we are not what we were, for we were not created to sin.
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.