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/
That may be the root of your error. Personhood is not a scientific concept at all. Science cannot do any experiment on the nature or existence of persons as such. Personhood is a philosophical concept, and belongs to the domain of philosophy.
-A8
It is a proper subject for scientific study and there is scientific concept of personhood. Science has an definite and clear understanding of both intelligence, sentience and the machinery of both.
-A8
Mary "served" Joseph in a "base way"? :) You really seem to have genuine disgust at the thought that Mary was a wife to her husband. Is your above indicative of your views of marital sex generally or only in this case?
We have given many verses that lean toward Mary bearing other children. The only responses I have seen were to discredit those verses. I have not seen any scriptural argument PROMOTING Mary's perpetual virginity. Perhaps there is a reason for that. :) As I read the scriptures, I only see marriage as being a positive and blessed institution. I do not see God approving of any sham marriages:
Matt. 19:6 : Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (KJV)
I suppose the Apostolic interpretation of this verse would be that it doesn't say that God can't put it asunder. Or, that God can create a sham marriage if He wants to. I suppose that if God created it, He is free to wreck it also, but I don't see why He would have done this to people like Mary and Joseph.
kai to gennwmenon agion klhqhsetai, uioV qeou [Luk 1:35]
(and the holy that shall be begotten (of Mary) shall be called the Son of God). Son of God is God. Incarnate Son of God is God. The Child born of Virgin Mary was and is God.
Jesus specifically told us that He would be with us even to the very end of the age.
I did not see it on this thread, but her statement "I know not man" in Luke 1 suggests that it was never the intention to consummate the marriage to Joseph in a sexual way. I recall discussing it on the Erasmus thread. That is because, normally, a woman engaged to be married does not react in utter surprise when she is told that she will bear a child.
No experiment is warranted. Persons are observed. Anyone can go to the mall and observe persons. All 50 states and the feds recognize persons and have a catogory of crimes against the person. It's a rather old and established observational fact now.
This is not the picture of the second coming is it; when our Lord Jesus comes to judge the world? It is certainly not my view of God.
I view God as totally in charge and far more proactive; choosing and directing the courses of events, raising kings and establishing nations. Not one sparrow falls to the ground without His express approval. Historically God has always thrust Himself upon a world that, quite frankly, couldn't care less about Him. He came to Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and others throughout history. He called out a nation to be holy to Him and to illustrate this holiness.
God greatest desire and love for his elect is to be holy. He has given us the means to be holy through His Spirit. Even as Christians, we are without excuse before God. When we fall and sin, God understands our weaknesses but that does not excuse us. We have all the resources of God at our disposal to conform to Him. Our failures are our own. Our successes are His. He continuously chastens and hastens us to become more like Him.
This is the great truth of the scriptures (at least one of them). God's greatest effort is to raise us up to be like Him, not to come down to our level to be like us. God jealously guards us (His elect) all the while lovingly reproving us to make us more like Him. This is God's great love for us.
"It is certainly not my view of God."
I know, HD. That's why I made the comment and posted the quote. :)
It suggest no such thing. what it means is that she was a virgin, not will always be a virgin.
"normally, a woman engaged to be married does not react in utter surprise when she is told that she will bear a child."
They do when the announcement says they will bear a child and there's been no sex! It doesn't matter if they're engaged. If there's been no sex the woman's going to be quite disturbed. Why I even remember that an angel visted Joseph to calm him down with an explanation.
The announcement refers to the future and the marriage, and presumably its consummation are in the future. The natural dialog would have gone like this:
- You will be with Child and He will be called the son of the Most High
- Great! I can't wait to tell my fiancee Joseph!
The announcement refers to a pregnancy right then, not in the future. Note she became pregnant and was known to be pregnant before they were married!
-A8
That's just your interpretation.
-A8
I don't interpret plain language. It means she was a virgin and the angel told her she would be with child before they were married! So the response in no way whatsoever means she was indicating she would always be a virgin.
Yes they are. See the fields of psychiatry, neurology, physiological psychology, artificial intellegence and so on.
"No scientific experiment has ever or can ever confirm or disconfirm the existence of persons"
any idiot can make this observation and be scientific about it!
"or the nature of personhood"
Wrong. See the subject matter in the above fields. Note the self, or person is the subject matter of personality disorders.
"Personhood belongs entirely to the domain of philosophy."
Science will study whatever can be observed.
Cite one scientific experiment demonstrating what a person is. You can't because there is no such experiment and can never be.
Not all knowledge is obtainable or verifiable by the scientific method.
-A8
It is your intepretation that the language in question is plain language.
It means she was a virgin and the angel told her she would be with child before they were married!
It is your interpretation that it means only that. It is annalex's interpretation that it means more than that.
So the response in no way whatsoever means she was indicating she would always be a virgin.
That's your interpretation.
-A8
Respectfully. It's obvious that you don't know the difference between observation and experiment. Experiments are used to test hypothesis, not observations. Personhood can and has been modeled mathematically.
" Not all knowledge is obtainable or verifiable by the scientific method."
If it can be observed at all, it can be. If it can't be observed, it's likely not worth anything, other than as fiction. God knows this. That's why He came to teach who He is and what He is about.
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.