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/
I posted a respected scholars view on the subject, not 'a diatribe' which is what you have been giving me in place of actual facts.
Not me. I think some people are turned off by snakes and poison...but that's not shcolarship.
Matter of opinion I suppose. The post was too long and boring. Happy? BTW, if you feel my posts are diatribes, why do you respond? Or do you just have to get your last word in? Too bad: it won't happen. Bye.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, No pattern?
I think there’s a bias from an aged traditionalist perspective peeking through.
I don’t think God gets His biggest kicks out of a LOT of routine scripted stuff.
His creativity should clue us in, to that.
The spontaneity of Holy Spirit should clue us in, to that.
His varied responses could also clue us in to insights, if we asked Him about them.
Hogwash is hogwash in any denomination.
Look, peasants could not afford to go to school to learn how to read and write because it was meaningless for their day-to-day living. Illiteracy rate was high no matter where you went in those days, and even among the upper classes. Very few people were admired for lounging all day and reading/writing (except for scribes and clergy). Men were admired for their power and bravery (kinda like today), all brawn and very little brain.
That's why all the way up to the present most people receive their Bible wducation by going to churches and hearing someone else tell them what to believe.
"This is how you should pray...IOur Father..." sounds pretty repetitive to me, not very spontaneous, not left to us to create...
If that’s the only way I ever prayed . . . I’d think God would be wondering when I was going to graduate from the incubator.
Well, apparently, our Lord thought it to be sufficient. But what does He know, right?
Well, it's not, at least in the literal sense.
Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues Look, your revisionist articles make up their own truth
The FACT is that Galileo made a 30X telescope, trained it on the Moon and saw craters. When he showed the carters to the Vatican officials they said it was an illusion created by the devil; they said the moon did not have any craters. It's the bible, not the science that pretends to be the "official truth."
The truth is, and some people can't handle it, that the myth of Genesis is irreconcilable with evidence of life forms predating humans, and evidence of human species, the same way that the craters were incompatible with the biblical notion of "heaven" being the sky above and all the objects there being "perfect spheres."
I don’t think your assumption in terms of mindreading what Our Christ thought about that prayer and praying otherwise to be very convincing.
And I found your jab insulting.
The first attempt to create Chrsitian 'canon' was made by none other than Marcion (the heretic some Baptists like to call their own) in the 2nd century, so your sources are 'beliefs' as you say (probably without relaizing it):
There was no Christian canon in those days. That's some woodoo scholarship you are citing. The fact is that even Athansius whom you love so much believed at least two apocryphal books to be scripture. But that was two hundred years after the fanatasy you quoted about the early 2nd century. At that time, all sorts of books were being read as scripture in early churches.
One Clement (96 AD) paraphrases the book of Hebrews but does not cosnider it scriptutre. the only thing he considers scripture is the Old Testament. That's because the Gospels were still being written.
Well, let’s not be too sensitive. I do know that the Lord gives us one prayer and says thus we should pray. Everything else is a conjecture or a man-made tradition.
As are the assumptions about that one prayer.
Revisionism is always an option, FTD.
It is you who have to 'get real', no religion claims that their Founder is God and that He died for them and rose again
That's not what you said originally (you can check your own posts). You said that the founder is alive, not that he died and rose again. Make up your mind.
Judaism claims Abraham and Moses as their founders and Islam, Mohomad.
Nope, Judaism and islam claim their rleigionc ame from God, delivered personbally to Moses and Mohammad. Christianity is not a new religion. It is a contiunation of Judaism with God's correction.
Even the Devils believe in God and tremble, but that won't save them
That has to do with the nature of their sin and the nature of their creation.
Boy, that shows how little you know of religion
Feelings are mutual. :) God is the source of everything and all including the religion.
But as for being a Christian, I doubt you are one. You belong to a church, but that does not make you a Christian (Jn.3)
Coming from a Protestant...LOL!
What “assumptions”, Quix? Does the the NT have any other official prayer from God Himself?
Good point. And where Isaac was bound with ropes and laid upon the alter, our Lord Jesus willingly laid down His life. It's also important to note that Abraham's faith was such that he did not believed he was going to sacrifice Isaac but God would raise him up from the dead because of his promise.
Ah, but Christ first appeared to them and He was such compelling company that they begged Him to stay.
Yes, I think you’re facts are correct. Translations existed and evolved simply because people could read and write. I wouldn’t go on record as saying large masses could read but there were enough.
okay of these ‘enough’ how many could afford to buy a copy of the bible?
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.