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/
where?
Nevermind, I foundit. Got lost on the posts...
I don't think the Jesus who walked around was schizophrenic in any way. He was unified. At the same time it makes no sense that Jesus would pray to Himself. Yet He prayed to the Father. Of the exact mechanics of this I am unsure. It is a mystery. I would think you would have some sympathy for this view. :)
Truth is, whatever Christ did or does, at no time was in conflict with either of His two natures, or separate from His natures.
I fully agree.
[continuing:] That's why His Incarnation, Mary's pregnancy and birth, were not your "natural."
Here I must disagree. :) What is "natural"? Did Christ grow a beard? If He did, then was that "natural"? If you say "no" because the hairs belonged to Christ and everything about Christ is supernatural, then you have simply defined the term in a certain way, and that is fine with me. If "yes", then that is what I am talking about. I happen to think that my view better emphasizes that Christ was fully human.
Of course not, just as His flesh was human flesh and his DNA was that of Mary's human DNA ( but not "natural" in that, technically speaking, such DNA would make Him genetically a female haploid).
I don't think Jesus was any resemblance to a human clone of Mary (except male). I think Mary's DNA contributed in the normal way toward a child together with what was given by the Holy Spirit. This "act" was wholly supernatural. However, I think Jesus had normal human blood that was, in fact, natural.
I have no reason to doubt his ability.
we can see different emphases in one nature or the other in some of the actions He took. For example, when He literally forgave sin, the emphasis was on His divine nature. However, when He prayed generally, or when He specifically asked for the cup to be taken away, that was more an emphasis on His human nature.We've had argument about different persons and different natures, finite and infinite in the Word Incarnate, but "different emphasis in different natures" – I think that's a new one...
If God and spirit are anything, they are transcendent - transcending pure empirical science and reason/logic.
If you wish to reduce your religion to this, you have reduced God out of it.
Quoting Crick: "The view of ourselves as 'persons' is just as erroneous as the view that the Sun goes around the Earth, . . .... this sort of language will disappear in a few hundred years."
-A8
She's not married yet and a virgin. The various translations simply indicate no husband and/or virgin. Note however that she becomes pregnant before they are married. That is the future the angel is refering to and that is what Mary is answering to. Neither her, nor the angel is taling after marriage. Do you need the sciptural references for the angel's visit to Joseph and another reference to the fact she became unmarried and pregnant?
-A8
An authority which would be true . . . if Yeshua were not Mary's Root as well as her Branch.
God is certainly logical and doesn't transcend logic. He came here to present Himself, tell us who He is and what He was about. He was completely logical. His words and the spirit He presented are subject to rational study. The world is subject to rational study, but not Heaven. In simple physics, it is imaginary and off bounds. In other physics theories that are consistent with this world apply to other possible worlds. In the end, there will be duals that are the same here, but different elsewhere. "If you wish to reduce your religion to this, you have reduced God out of it."
I've reduced nothing. I've gained in knowledge and understanding. I'm just not satified with clutching my chest and saying God is in here.
I don't do appeals to authority.
"he saw not a single shred of scientific evidence for the existence of persons."
I'd have to see exactly what his claims are. As I said, I have a rough idea what his claims are about. The key word is determinism and his claim is that men are simply machines w/o free will. He's not very good at AI, so he's speaking from a biased political/philosophical standpoint.
"Persons as such are not detectible by any scientific instrument."
I can build one, so that's not true. It's much simpler for a man to do it.
Either you don't understand the terms or you are a reductionist unaware. Maybe a little of both.
I think it's still early with you. You have a good mind and I think the Hound of Heaven is on your tail. I hope you continue and grow in your exploration.
Best wishes and happy advent.
But in any case, even within a Trinitarian framework, the title "Son of God" refers to exactly one part out of three of the Trinity, and then has particular reference to His Incarnation as the King of Israel, a man. So again, the distinction remains.
God could have done it without Mary and still make Jesus fully human. He did it with Adam. Why not Christ?
Crick was an atheist who was perceptive enough to know that things looked designed and that evolution wouldn't work. So, rather than dare to condescend to thinking that there may actually be a God who set this rock in motion, he put forward the idea that Aliens "seeded" the planet (Panspermia).
The analogy is spot on. That is the reason you reject it.
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.