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 is too horrible to go back at look at...put your hand to the plow and don't look back, brother
You guys are very quickly making this into an "Adults Only" thread. I had to disenable my Parental Control just to get to the site.
By the way, has their been any discussion on Phil. 2:5-8, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
From Matthew Henry, "That Jesus Christ in his state of humiliation divested himself of this glory, and drew a veil over it; though he was still God, yet he was God manifested in the flesh, not in his glory. He laid down this glory for a time, as a pledge that he would go through with his undertaking, according to the appointment of his Father."
Mary was the mother of Jesus (His human nature, not His Divine nature) the nature He voluntarily took on to bring redemption to fallen man and the world according to the plan of the father.
LOL It doesn't appear to be sinking in...
Absolutely. That is why we know the whole Red Sea deal was really done by the great, great, great etc, GrandFather of Doug Henning
Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself "apart from woman," remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3 and 46.3).
Brother Anthony M. Opisso, M.D.
Oh. I see. So the New Testament isn't Scripture.
I knew you would.
Anyone who disagrees with your personal opinions is wrong. And, that includes Scripture, Jesus, Church Fathers, Saints, Ecumenical Councils, Catechisms, Systematic Theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and men like St John of the Cross etc etc.
You are the Christian Cheese, so to speak :)
Where DA Carson would speak contrary to Scripture, I would reject it. If the Apostle Paul Himself were to speak Contrary to Scripture, I would reject it. So would the Bereans.
PLease feel at liberty to try and respond to what I posted.
Is the New Testament Scripture or not?
Along with every major Protestant denomination.
A correct understanding of the Trinity is the foundation for any ecumenicism at all. Anyone who disavows the "eternal existence of the Holy Trinity" is not a member of the holy catholic church, as ordained by God for His glory.
But from various discussions on FR and in the news, it seems like the Trinity is going to be a battlefield of the 21st century. I appreciate the RCs and Orthodox holding firm to Scriptural orthodoxy here.
Post for me the SOLE New Testament Verse which refers to that which was written by a Catholic and sent to a Catholic Church and which was, later, Canonised by the Catholic Church.
C'est la vie
I gotta jet. I'll check back later to see if you-know-who has responded :)
I agree with you.
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 A.D.) wrote: "Now by the word 'rock,' Jesus indicated I think the immovable faith of the disciple." (Commentary on Isaiah IV.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col 940.)
Amen. Good post.
The earliest known is to St. James the Great in AD 39, then to Pope Liberius (352), then to Richeldis de Faverche (1061), then to St. Dominic, instituting the Rosary prayer in 1214, then to Saint Simon Stock, instituting the Brown Scapular, in 1251.
Of especial importance to the Americans is the apparition to Juan Diego, 1531, in Villa Guadalupe.
I responded alright. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=2459#2459
The Roman Catholic church as an all encompassing organization wasn't around until after the close of the writing of Scripture. It had no preeminence until much later. Tradition is the only thing that tells you Peter was Pope. But Tradition is often quite wrong.
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.