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/
Normal heterosexual temptations are NOT a disordered desire! That desire was put in us by God for us to procreate and as an expression of love. It is one thing to say that they gave up this "good" for something better; it's quite another thing to imply that such sexual desires are disordered.
You don't see the importance, mostly because you have a gnostic view of virginity such that for you it does not matter how Jesus was born. Whereas the Church's view of virginity is such that Jesus had to have been botn a certain way so as not to corrupt Mary's virginity. The Savior could not have been the corruptor.
-A8
What exactly do you mean by "normal heterosexual temptation"?
-A8
It saddens me when I see a thread that talks about a movie on the Nativity become a source of all so much divisive comments. At a time when in some parts of the world if one is a Christian one could be threaten with either death or oppression, we have arguments on the mother of Jesus and sex, goddess worhip, skin color,ete, . Also as we get closer to Christmas and the incarnation of the Word of God, this is not very helpful.
Why I believe this is the wrong view is simply because I believe our sin is not passed through the mother but through the father. All wombs are holy and pure but sinful regeneration occurs through the man. This was one of the purposes of circumcision-to remind man that every time he procreates, he is creating a sinner. Thus there is no need to manufacture an immaculate conception.
Christ's virgin birth was necessary because He could not be a son of Adam, stained and tarnished by the sins of the world. It was through Adam that the world was condemned. Not Eve.
Unfortunately I am unable to prove my hypothesis. While I have plenty of females who may or may not wish to be test cases, I have no way to create a virgin birth.
-A8
Did not both Adam and Eve have sinned by latter for picking the apple from the tree and the former for accepting the apple?
Also remember that they both were punnished by God. Also what it means that sin came into the via Adam is that it means both Adam and Eve. So both human males and females have a fallen nature. That is why both males and females are baptized, it is to remove the original sins in both.
OK, OK, we got it. Childbirth is spiritually defiling. Matter bad, spirit good and Jesus never dirtied His immaculate diapers.
Women are tainted by original sin just as men simply because they are procreated. Baptism, IMO, is another issue too complex for here. I would simply say that it does not remove anything but it's an acknowledgement of what God has done for us. My contention is that God did not have to do anything special to Eve since sin enters the world through men. The particulars of how the Virgin Birth took place or the mechanics of it, is beyond my pay grade.
*If* one is limited by 'sola scriptura'. If you are limited by 'sola scriptura', then if you are asked whether Christ caused Mary to lose her virginity, you have to answer, "I don't know".
-A8
Are you saying that if Joseph wanted to have sex with Mary that was a disordered desire? I DO NOT believe that!
No, I'm not sure you do.
Childbirth is spiritually defiling.
The Church does not teach that childbirth is "spiritually defiling". Typically, only non-virgins go through the experience of giving birth. And so typically, childbirth does not cause a woman to lose her virginity. But in the case of Mary, because Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph, therefore Mary was still a virgin when she and Joseph were looking for a room at the inn at Bethlehem. And therefore birth (as we know birth) would have caused her to lose her virginity. But Christ corrupts no one, whether in soul or body. And so in His birth He did not damage her physical integrity.
Matter bad, spirit good and Jesus never dirtied His immaculate diapers.
Actually, matter is good. And that is precisely why in His birth Christ preserved the physical integrity of His mother. It is the gnostics who don't care about matter, and thus who don't care about Mary's physical integrity.
-A8
Joseph perceived that Mary was a holy vessel, consecrated unto God. And so he did not allow himself to desire sexual relations with her. He was of such a virtuous constitution that this was not a cause of stumbling for him. It is also for this reason, as I explained above, that Mary did no injustice to Joseph by not engaging in sexual relations with him.
-A8
Unfortunately, the Hebrew language doesn't. The word ach (or akh) can mean anything from a brother of the same parents to one of the parents (half brother) to kinship (cousins) and even members of the same tribe.
But, it's not whether a word exists or not that matters onbly, but also what the existing word means (the range of menaings).
The Greek word adelfos (adlephos) can mean brother of the same parents, or one of the parents (half brother), kin, etc.
You will have to find, as Campion points out, an actual biblical refreences that says "Mary's sons" in order to definitively draw a conclusion that she did in fact have other children of her own.
The Hebrew word "ach" (akh) means brothe rof the same parents, or one of the parent, kin, etc. There is no deifnite meaning to it that implies both parents. You will have to dig up a verse that plainly sayas "Mary's son James" to claim that she had other children.
I desire broccoli at lunch time when I am hungry and in need of a nutritious meal, so that is an ordered desire.
However, after I have eaten the amount of calories that is healthy for me, I have a "disordered desire" if I desparately want that piece of chocolate cake and PASS ON IT?
After all, desires are not limited to sexual desires, are they?
Where as a protestant would say that I resisted temptation, your "Catholic view" would seem to indicate that I have a serious failing.
No wonder a Catholic friend of mine suffer from excessive scrupulosity. Every thought is practically a sin!
What is wrong with a baby passing through a birth canal that would cause one to lose one's virtue?
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.