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/
I couldn't figure out what you mean.
Do you consider the late Francis Crick to have been a scientist capable of observation?
-A8
No, it's an observation.
" It is your interpretation that it means only that. It is annalex's interpretation that it means more than that."
The plain language is very clear and so is the bandwagon straw.
Re: the response in no way whatsoever means she was indicating she would always be a virgin.
"That's your interpretation."
I guess reasonable discourse only applies if one agrees that Catholic doctrine is the truth. Sorry, no dice. When it doesn't stand up rationally to what is written as God's word and/or reality itself, it's not the truth. It's simply popular opinion, traditional, or otherwise.
Of course annalex could just say that his interpretation is also "an observation", and then the two of you would, once again, be even.
The plain language is very clear and so is the bandwagon straw.
Of course annalex could claim that his interpretation is very clear to him, and then once again, the two of you would be even.
I guess reasonable discourse only applies if one agrees that Catholic doctrine is the truth. Sorry, no dice. When it doesn't stand up rationally to what is written as God's word and/or reality itself, it's not the truth. It's simply popular opinion, traditional, or otherwise.
Of course annalex could say the same thing to you, replacing the word "Catholic" with the word "spunkets's", and then, once again, the two of you would be even.
Do you see how pointless this is?
-A8
Jesus came for one reason. To save people from their sins. True, in order to be saved, you have to have at least a basic understanding of whom Christ is - but He could have told us all about Himself in the Word to a point. What happened when Jesus came, was he showed us the extent of His mercy and grace towards sinful humanity.
In His words, this is why He came:
Luke 19: 10For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
John 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 10:10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
I never said, or say "that's just your interpretation. I presented the facts in a logical fashion and showed how only one true conclusion could be drawn from them. This case was easy. Once that's done in a complete fashion, there's no point in going beyond that.
"Of course annalex could say the same thing to you, replacing the word "Catholic" with the word "spunkets's", and then, once again, the two of you would be even."
I didn't make the comment to annalex. Both of us presented facts and what we thought the conclusion warranted by the facts was. That is rational discouse. I made the remark to the comment, "that's your opinion", which when is repeatedly made, is not rational discourse.
Considering GOD had no beginning, that is correct. GOD has always existed. No beginning, no end. Period. In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD WAS WITH GOD and the WORD WAS GOD.
God the WORD took on human flesh and passed through the birth canal of Mary. Yet, there wasn't a single solitary moment where GOD THE WORD was born for there was never a single solitary moment that he ceased to exist and then suddenly had a beginning. God the WORD was united with Human DNA in an EGG , and that UNION, the GOD-MAN passed through the womb of Mary. Yet, Christ has always forever been the WORD.
Really? What is that future tense doing there?
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?Now explain this. The Angel speaks of the future. Mary responds with the present time, as if her not knowing man now precludes her pregnancy in the future. That can only be if her status as virgin is not going to change after marriage. This is exactly what the tradition tells us: that she was a temple virgin, given to Joseph in a custodial marriage that was to preserve her virginity.
No, her didn't. Show me. It is a plain scriptural question.
That is one reason. He came to teach who He was and what He was about. Saving folks from their sin is part of what He is about. It's important for folks to know Him, what His promise is, and what one must do in order to be saved. His teachings included about Him and His Spirit, so that others could know the reference for judgment.
In your opinion, only one true conclusion can be drawn. But in annalex's opinion, another true conclusion can be drawn. Who is to say?
-A8
So let me get this straight: God the Word was physically in the Womb, yet something else other than Him passed through the birth canal?
No, God the Word was unified with God the man and that unified Incarnation passed through Mary's birth canal normally, I contend. I know I'm not getting any lovin' for it, but remember that I AM the one guy on my side who doesn't have any problem with "Theotokos" (with qualifications). :)
Logic.
FK, do you think that "God the man" is a person? I ask that because I know we agree that "God the Word" is a Person. But it sounds like you believe that "God the man" is a person. In that case, however, there would be two persons passing through Mary's birth canal. That would be Nestorianism. :-)
-A8
You say that you are using logic. Annalex says that he is using logic. Who is to say who is truly using logic?
-A8
That was the main reason. To be saved, one does need to understand Him. But, He has also only given us knowledge about him up to a point. John said if he had written everything there is to know about Christ it would fill many more volumes. (paraphrasing there).
Jesus came that we might have life. That is the reason. To have life, you have to know who He is and accept His gift of salvation.
Once that would be accomplished, he did give His church further instruction for how life operates and how the Godhood operates. But the reason He came was for our salvation. The reason He has interacted with man at all is to reconcile us to Himself. Starting in the Old Testament, the sacrificial system, the law, the whole thing is showing us that we are sinners in need of a Savior and Christ came to be our Savior. Only one that could have done it.
Romans 9 speaks of how God basically puts up with the evil in the world in order to show us His mercy - so in that regard, yes, we are learning about God and "what He's all about." We could never have understood what Good is if we hasn't witnessed evil. We never would have know the richness of His grace unless we had seen and experienced it ourselves.
Actually, what the angel said and what Mary responded is not a question of logic. To make sense of her response requires logic, and it leads to the pledge of perpetual virginity in a straight line. Spunkets is merely wrong on the scripture here, even before we talk of any logic on his part.
Where in Scripture do you see a "pledge of perpetual virginity?"
Luke 1:34.
You may wish to read my recent posts, in particular 2667 and 2688.
Thank you for the link. It does not clarify why the original verse in question has anything to do with celibacy, but it does show that other verses, i.e., Numbers 12:8, are similarly turned into something else entirely than what is written.
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.