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's just that, to me, I can't conceive of God creating ANY KIND, TYPE OF LIVING STONES which would be limited, dead, static, unALIVE!
It's like the martyrs forever standing before the throne--whatever that means. As I've noted before, I used to construe that as a horrible prison. Then it dawned on me that God would not be punishing such highly honored martyrs--this would be A GREATER BLESSING SOME HOW.
What could be a greater expansiveness of blessing than those running around ruling and reigning with Christ over endless ages and countless multi-verses? Wellll, God only knows . . . but PERHAPS . . . the martyrs forever standing before The Throne can also [with supreme Heavenly-MIND-OF-CHRIST multiplexing] tune-in AT WILL to ANY CONSCIOUSNESS OF ANY CREATURE IN ANY MULTIVERSE IN ANY ASPECT/PART/LOCATION OF GOD'S CREATION.
Now, THAT could be interesting!
I suspect THE LIVING STONES will likewise not be bored, static, motionless, IN SOME SENSE, at all. Else, they'd not be LIVING in any sense that makes sense to us. And God used the words to make SOME degree of sense, to us.
Of course, you are right about "chairness."
Thus the "perfect chair" paradigm is also an instance of "non-existent reality"....
I suppose. Though part of me starts checking my wallet; looking for the door and scanning for threat whenever someone talks about 'non-existent reality.' LOL.
But I agree--many intangible constructs have a lot of usefulness. I just think that some of them get so intellecualized and pontifically . . . airy . . . as to entirely fly out the window of really practical Biblical usefulness.
All of which is to say what . . . where were we at the start of this exchange . . . MAYBE I'll go back and check by and by.
Ahhhh yes, back at THAT WHICH IS PERFECT DOESN'T CHANGE.
Which I still find to be mostly nonsense.
Kosta50 and I think at least I have somewhat moved beyond that because the better English construct turned out to be COMPLETE, FULL, FINISHED.
But assuming that there's still some Biblical usefulness to the English notion of perfect . . . I still contend that we finite souls have little to NO practical comprehension about perfection such that we could really honestly DARE to presume/assume/infer/extrapolate that
ALMIGHTY GOD--THE--ALMIGHTY GOD WE KNOW--HIS PERFECT would not include whatever varieties, aspects of change HE CHOSE. Certainly HE IS DYNAMIC, CREATIVE TO THE MAX . . . and THAT involves at least CHANGE IN HIS CREATION and thereby in HIS RELATIONSHIP with that Creation.
As impressive as cosmological theories are, they are, after all, still theories. Fifty years from now, they will be as outdated as the steady-state theory is today.
I mentioned our axial rotational speed of 1K mph as an example without going into the rotational speed around the sun, or suns rotational speed around the galaxy, or the speed with which the galaxy is closing in or receding from other galaxies.
But, your elaborate presentation is most appreciated. I do have a question regarding your statement "In sum, the universe is at least 156 light years wide." Did you forget some zeros?
Also, relativity is no different than the Ptolemaic navigational method (that, in its own right is an epitome of relativity!), which can still be used to navigate, its geocentric premises notwithstanding. But, the fact is, the same method could be applied on Mars or on a comet, with correct repetitive phenomena recorded and formulated in the same way. It would give predictable and repetitive results with a high dose of confidence, which is what science is all about, right?
But science does not give truth; it merely provides working models. And working models can have any number of "dimensions" needed for the equations to give the desired answer. In fact, if you need to account for a phenomenon, invent a new "dimension" or "element," or "particle," and plug it into an equation and you're in business!
Claudius Ptolemy conveniently introduced an "egg-shaped" orbit of Mercury, "epicycles" and "equants" that neatly completed his formulae to fit the observed phenomena! Scientists do it all the time! For instance, cosmologists conveniently "add" estimated matter "needed" to solve equations. They are all estimates, assumptions and presumptions.
What we seem to see in all of creation is that everything is going in circles. We rotate around the axis, around the sun, multiple (usually double) star systems around each other, stars around the galaxy, and galaxies belonging to a local group rotate around each other, .
The whole universe could be rotating, creating a giant 'donut' as parts closer to the common center would travel faster while peripheral parts would move slower relative to each other, thus providing the perception of expansion or contraction based on spectral shifts. But my point is that such shifts do not prove that the universe is not going around in circles, nor does it disprove that there may be more than one such universe.
Cosmology also does not explain what is this vast "space" we are traversing "through," this abyss with no beginning and no end, or where it comes from. If the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang the space is really an endless "hole," and this "hole" had to predate energy and matter!
Your elaboration and "concordance" with the Genesis and cosmology brings to mind that there are two accounts of Genesis, and that the order of creation is reversed in them, with man created before plants and animals in one and after the animals and plants in the other.
Likewise, the Big Bang theory "concordance" with the Bible would have the Bible start "And God said: 'Let there be Light!'" '[Bang!] rather than "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
But, as you say, it is not important that we disagree on which science to believe or whether the Bible is "exactly the way it happened," but whether we can find the same Spirit in our hearts. The rest is our honest journey out of love for God.
And the NT reminds us that Love is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
And a Taoist says: "Life is the way it is even if you don't understand it".
That which occupies the space between galaxies is dark energy which as an effect like negative gravity or a space/time "outdent" - as compared say to a high positive gravity area such as dark matter which occupies the center of galaxies and causes the stars to orbit, i.e. a space/time "indent." Dark energy is 70% of the critical density of the universe, dark matter is 25% and ordinary matter a meager 5%.
And here I was, silly me, thinking all along that μονογενες meant only [mono] begotten [genes].
Wouldn't first-born imply that there may be a "second-born?"
The passage which speaks of branches refers to Israel and Christianity per se:
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. Romans 11:16-28
Talk about humanizing God! In order for God to be believeable He must fit our frame of mind, and "make sense." The Age of Reason is such a spiritual dead end.
Exactly. Thank you Kolo.
And a Russian hieromonk in a monastery told me "Kosta, we Orthodox are not of this world any longer." Now, that I can understand! :)
For God is (strictly speaking) "non-existent reality" -- by which I mean He is not subject to the categories of space and time but is, as Plato said, "Beyond" (i.e., utterly transcendent to) the world (or Cosmos). Neither Aristotelian logic nor the scientific method can deal with this tremendous immensity.
It is sad to watch Dawkins insist that God does not exist because Dawkins cannot understand Him.
It is even more sad to me when a Christian insists that God must be understandable to him. A Christian should know better than to think God could fit in a tidy little box (to use Quix's term.)
Yes! Repent and He gently, and ever so lovingly, pushes us back "on track."
To quote a creat hesychastic Father, "I neither fasted, nor kept vigils, nor slept on bare floor, but, to use the Pslmist's words,'I humbled myself and God saved me.'" [Saint Symenon the New Theologian, 10th century AD)
You know this is not something we discuss very often on the Religion Forum, but I'd like to see that change because this awareness of being alive in Christ while yet in the flesh is breath-taking.
And it is a subtle and beautiful part of Christ's prayer for us in John 17, before He faced the Cross. Note the tense (emphasis mine):
Oh and the same to you, dear FK. Christ is Risen!
Indeed.
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. - John 17:11
Oh, A-G...may God bless you. :)
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.