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/
Yeah, right.
Do you have a question for me, or do you have anything in your post I did not explain earlier?
It is true that the Apostles did not perhaps understand the meaning of the Last Supper till the Resurrection. I would liken their portrayal in the Gospels to college, perhaps; still, what you are making is a caricature. For one thing, the expectation of greatness in them was sincere, albeit misplaced. There is no indication of insincerity or mirth in the account of the Last Supper as all the apostles pledge loyalty: Peter "spoke the more vehemently: Although I should die together with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all" (Mark 14:31).
I agree with this, Blue Duncan. I am not sure what is it that you and Kosta are arguing about.
You are not the only one puzzling over “this is my body” scripture, you know.
Nor is it the only scripture that speaks of physical impossibilities. How about “Before Abraham was, I am”?
In the words of Archangel Gabriel, “with God, everything is possible”.
We aren’t arguing we are exploring a new way to share the results of our studies. We are discussing as family the finer points of the presence of Jesus, like “where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them”.
It started off with the notion of being to the 'right' of the Christ being placed to the right of the Father (by the Father) according to +Paul, and by being raised BY the Father from the dead, also according to +Paul and Acts (which is the same thing as +Paul).
In other words, Christ is always portrayed as subordained to God the Father, and this is something alien to our Creed and Trinitarian theology.
BD now says that Christ was "subordained" to the Father in the Divine Economy, which of course makes no sense when it comes to Christ raising Himself or Christ in heaven being told where to sit!
The Creed says "On the third day He rose," not "He was raised." big difference. And "sitting to the right of the Father" is of course not taken literally as apparently +Paul and the Prots interpret; neither was He told where to sit as +Paul suggests. That is a distorted, indeed, perverted pseudo-Trinitarian picture more akin to Arianism than Christianity.
Yeah, that's what it is.
As BD quoted form one of +Paul's letters, Christ is in heavenly placeS, suggesting that He is (physically) in more than one place at the same time (ooooh!), but one could certainly say that Litrugy being "heaven on earth" could be one of those havenly placeS. Why not, if we can believe that Jonah lived in an acid-filled, orxygen deprived, curshing stomach of a fish for three days without ill effects, or that people were healed if only +Peter's shadow passed over them...we should be able to believe anything.
Nicely said.
I do peak at this thread from time to time.
It is a good place to visit.
Thank you, and my spelling is sometimes better too ...
LOL! I gave up being the grammar police in 1993! LOL!
Actually, I am not struggling over this it is very straight forward if your reading without someone else's lens. I don't doubt your sincerity, or that of your fellow RC apologists. I believe a straight forward reading of Scripture shows the bread and wine to be SYMBOLIC, just as the passover celebration is a SYMBOLIC reminder of GOD'S protection of his chosen people.
Nor is it the only scripture that speaks of physical impossibilities. How about “Before Abraham was, I am”?
Are you saying that the preincarnate Jesus was already in human form?
Where in Scripture are we given examples of JESUS physically being in more than one place simultaneously?
Of course it is not symbolic. "Food indeed" is the straightforward reading. We've been there three times already on this thread alone.
Are you saying that the preincarnate Jesus was already in human form?
Of course not, -- we are given the incarnation story. Still, the phrase puzzled the Pharisees.
JESUS physically being in more than one place simultaneously?
Nowhere, but why is this all of a sudden a requirement? He walked on water, raised the dead, walked through walls, rose from the grave, but bilocation is what strains credulity?
Nowhere,...
Thank you.
You freely admit that nowhere in Scripture does Jesus physically appear in more than one location simultaneously. Yet you believe his BODY & BLOOD appear all over the world simultaneously because your church has a doctrine that says so. IOW, your doctrine is inconsistent with Scripture.
Eph 1:20
It is scripture that says "this bread is my body" and "my flesh is food indeed". Do you likewise require any other miracle to appear twice in the scripture?
Nope, the Gospels use no such word. Acts [4:10] mentions that He was raised by GOD (not that He rose); the rest of the references to His raising come strictly from +Paul (if you wish to count Acts as non-Pauline) and are always in the passive form, that He was raised by God and not that He rose.
This is clearly in contrast to our Creed (4th century AD) which says
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.