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 does. Someone who doesn't know the older scriptures will never understand the new. Jesus' actions and words are all based on the tenet "It is written" and everything He does and says has its base in the Old Testament.
They sure can be.
<>"B) Who's talking about causes? I'm asking why you choose to make your decisions based on enjoyment."
I didn't say I based them on enjoyment. I said I get up, because I value life and that a sufficient reason for that is, becuase I enjoy it.
"What is the logic behind living for enjoyment?"
Logic is a process, not a philosophy.
"If it feels good, do it? You know this is not logic."
Apparently you didn't comprehend my last post.
Re: Everything can be known by observation and reason.
" Except perhaps why you got out of be this morning?"
You just don't like my answer.
"What's the real reason - or is it that underneath all the reasoning, there is something else?"
There is nothing else that isn't encompassed by love of life.
LOL, ain't that the truth, brother
Congrats, brother. That is heart-warming. 70th wedding anniversary. Tell me the Holy Spirit ain't part of that marriage...
I am not in any orders such as monks or priests. The only "status" I worry about is my salvation. Obedience to the teachings of the Church, big and small, is an element of that. Of course, obedience requires participation of a questioning mind, but it also requires a will to understand the mind of the Church. In other words, testing of the message of the Church for internal consistency -- against the Scripture as you do or more broadly in its entirety -- is a step toward sanctified life, but if it becomes a sport, then it is a stumbling block rather than a useful step.
He was, in this case, reacting to His Daughter publicly exhibiting Faith whereas His brothers and sisters did not believe in Him.
Of course, one can only speculate that He was secretly married to Magdalene...
BTW, Harley, you are a blast to dialogue with because you are smart and love Scripture.
However, your explanation is only one of many possible ones and it spiritualises away the actual words of Jesus.
Obviously, He had children
Thanks, Dad began his last church when he was 85 after he returned from from a stint in the Peace Corps in Nicaragua. He is a firm believer that the Lord's call lasts until God calls you home or you mess up royally according to the scripture.
I'm not seeing that Elisabeth employed the phrase as a title, given that this is the only time in Scripture it is employed. Rather, Elisabeth, moved by the Spirit, refers to Mary as "the mother of our Lord" as a descriptor, no doubt to provide objective confirmation to Mary that she wasn't crazy and was indeed the mother of the Messiah King--which she was, just as David was His father.
Again, the problem is the implication that Mary is the mother of the totality of God, which would indeed place her in authority over Him. It needs to be emphasized that He is her Creator, God, and Lord first.
I never heard of this "justification". The justification I am familiar with is the Marriage at Cana story.
That's the usual example given, but the justification is the one I've heard repeatedly from Catholic friends and associates, both in RL and on the Web.
I've spent a great deal of time in the Old Testament because I've always felt it was a clear representation of how God truly deals with people. The stories are not simply moral stories, but ones given for our instruction as to the way God acts towards mankind. However, many simply reject the Old Testament since it doesn't fit with their concept of God.
It's impossible to reconciled the sugary-sweet Christ surrounded by children and lambs we see today with the same God who rained fire or flooded the world on a disobedient people as described in the Old Testament. People have rejected the true God of scripture, setting up a God made in their image; worshiping all sorts of things but the true living God. If we truly understood our depravity, we would be falling on our knees begging forgiveness for our weakness and failings; not wearing shirts that states, "Jesus is my homeboy."
Fortunately God is rich in His grace and mercy. He calls out His people and we walk in a wilderness, sustained by His word, as we are led home.
The issue is with your post 2,577 where you speculate that to a Jew motherhood is lordship. Unless Elisabeth was facetious, title shmitle, she did not exhibit such attitude.
but the justification is the one I've heard repeatedly from Catholic friends and associates
Either they are wrong yor you heard wrong. Mary is asked for her intercession, not to order Christ around.
Is this new Catholic teaching? My, my; the things that are coming out of Rome these days.
I normally use the word rational, because that includes scrutinizing the evidence.
"I met a very interesting person who had very logical reasons for believing the world did not exist. He started with some flawed assumptions, but used correct logic and reasoning from there on. "
Puzzles are cute, but it wasn't a rational construction. When the conclusion contradicts reality, the logic is bad.
"Logic is a great tool, but a very fearsome master. If all I used was logic and reason, then I could find no reason not to kill all unproductive members of society."
Logic is a process to be used to examine relationships between things and discover truths. It can not be a master anymore than a voltmeter can be a master.
If you can find no justification for coming to the conclusion that you have no right to take the life of another, for any reason other than to protect your rights from imminent violation, then you are not being logical whatsoever. If you require an appeal to authority for justification. You are not being logical whatsoever.
"Some British doctors are using logic just like that to push for the killing of handicapped children."
That is socialism. It's a arbitrary philosophy, not logic. The philosphy that a few experts, or "representatives" have the rightful place and duty to dictate is also behind the bulk of American law also. Without a fundamental respect for individual life and rights, there is no logic to the philosophy.
God came to teach who He was and what He was about. Seems He missed your definition and could have saved Himself the trip. Of course it's more likely He Knew about it and just disregarded it on the grounds that it was ridiculous.
And yet Yeshua had to quote the Scriptures to substantiate His claim to be David's Lord and greater than His forefather.
And yet even an Apostle made a point to say that Yeshua's lineage was from David "according to the flesh."
Elizabeth greeted Mary as the mother of a king, of the King. But she did not call her the Mother of God. The former was a matter of fact; the latter is blasphemy. The former still allows for the King to be greater than His earthly parent if He was in fact her Creator (her "father" in effect); the latter implies that Mary is God's Creator, that without her there would be no God at all. That's not the intent, but that's the implication, and that's why I reject the title. Words mean things.
Either they are wrong yor you heard wrong. Mary is asked for her intercession, not to order Christ around.
I did not hear wrong, and as for the latter, perhaps you should read some of your own literature. Alphonsus de Liguori’s famous book, The Glories of Mary, which was originally published in 1750 AD and has since appeared in over 800 editions, includes the following tidbits:
Shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.”I know there are many Catholics who would reject the above, particularly the latter quote. I am sure you would too, so don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth. Nevertheless, the popularity of the book proves that many Catholics fall right into the trap I've expressed concern about, of elevating Mary above Christ!“Many things,” says Nicephorus, “are asked from God, and are not granted: they are asked from Mary, and are obtained.”
“At the commands of Mary all obey—even God!”
--De Liguori, Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary, ed. Eugene Grimm (Brooklyn: Redemptionist Fathers, 1931), pp. 169, 180, 137
Perhaps you should see to cleaning up your own house before castigating those outside of it.
Do what you will, but do not pretend to dress it up in any scriptural analysis.
I haven't read Alphonsus de Liguori’s book and will not comment on short quotes without context.
castigating those outside of it
Who did I castigate?
Wow. It is bracing to hear of vows honored and honored in witness to Christ. You must be very proud of your Dad
Seeing as you've not managed to poke any holes in that analysis . . .
Who did I castigate?
I was using "you" in the collective plural sense.
"You must be very proud of your Dad"
At times. Remember it is a blessing and somewhat of a curse. There is no retirement here but the retirement benefits there are beyond our ability to think or dream.
The hole is Elisabeth calling Our Lady "Mother of my Lord". This contradicts your post 2,577 where you speculate that to a Jew motherhood is lordship. You said nothing that fixes the hole.
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.