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/
It seems to be a moving target. Each generation, or century rolls by, and the worship expands and her role grows. Thus, the people who throw themselves on the floor prostrate to "venerate" Mary at EO services (yet this isn't done for JESUS) don't think anything of it. I think these people fall into this behavior because it is becoming common place. They probably are very desirous of a close personal relationship with GOD, but have been misled to believe they have to go through her.
I think your psychological analysis is probably right on target.
nobody throws themselves on the floor to prostrate mary in any liturgies at orthodox parishes.
protestantism is the 20,000 mixed messages moving target. Orthodox doctrine doesn’t change. it’s not a moving target.
whereas some folks just take the advise of the wolfish pastor dujour and move along if they, in their papal authority, disagree with him...
I don't believe God gave us the capacity to think in order to ask others to do it for us.
Numerous times EO have stated that if there is a leader in this church that goes against Scripture they will be deposed. Obviously, if true, the members of the EOC have the capacity to recognize right and wrong.
Protestantism should co-market with Holiday in;
Protestants aren’t Popes, they don’t have degrees in theology, but each and every one of them DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
I may have misread earlier posts from Kosta. He did mention the overreaction to Mary versus Jesus.
by 2 kooks at a single Serbian parish in America.
unlike protestants the laity coming up with crazy new ideas does NOT change Orthodox doctrine, nor Orthodox praxis.
it just makes a couple of laity look bizzare.
The Pharisees and Sadducee's had all the trappings of office, yet the Son of God stood in front of them and they didn't see who he was. They had all this "official, certified, ordained" training and they didn't see the fulfillment of prophesy.
What good was their theological training when the greatest moment in history was happening in front of them and they didn't recognize it?
The point of Christ continual interaction with The Pharisees and Sadducees wasn’t that a formal and educated priesthood was wrong. God himself throughout the Old Testament establish the priesthood.
The problem with them is exactly what protestants do reguraly; they’d take little pieces of scripture out of context and apply them to situations, completely misinterpreting the greater meaning of scripture in the process. Meantime they lived hypocritical lives, and used religion for financial gain.
Not at all unlike the televangeistas and TBN idols who mangle scripture for financial gain daily.
I didn't mean to minimize the difficulty. I think anyone who has struggled with biblical issues from the heart can understand that.
Q,
Can you point me to one line in the Catholic Catechism that says anything close to what you state? Now, can someone misteach what the Church teaches? Of course. Priests and nuns are not perfect, nor are RCIA teachers or Sunday school teachers. They have been known to be wrong. But the official stance of the Church does not include any such "worship" of Mary. Let me know when you can give me any official stance that says otherwise. Until then, you are dealing with personal devotions or mistaken ideas.
Regards
Agree, kawaii.
PS is "doven" a legitimate English word?
Yet, the bible tells us otherwise.
The Chuch has no control over what people do. The Church can only teach the truth is was given by Christ. What we do with it is ours.
The Church does not teach what some people practice.
exactly. Pharisees were not all priests. Besides, God established royal priesthood (and I don't remember Christ ever abolishing it!). Just because human corruption made it corrupt does not change the fact that God wants royal priesthood.
It was the way the Pharisees approach the Law and the Prophets that was wrong, not the priesthood.
I didn't take it that way.
It's a great deal of fun to go back and forth and argue different points. It's a great way to learn!
Well, the Reformed will simply tell you that God ordained it so before all ages. So, it wasn't them but God who made sure they couldn't see.
The Less Deformed will tell you that this is a very human thing. Even the Apostles did not fully believe until after the fact; they were also blind and failed, and they ate and walked with Him! So, how can you blame those who doubted him from afar?
Yet some sects don't do a lot to stop it and after a few generations it becomes accepted as the norm by that sect.
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.