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/
Well to you, apparently I am. How do you know that YOU have it right? For myself, my appeal is to Scripture. How do YOU know that what you believe is right? To what do you appeal?
Romans 8:15-17 (King James Version)
15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Am I missing something here? Peter-Paul makes Almond Joys and they're great!
By the way, to all who stumble on this post:
"May the Peace of the Newborn Saviour Abide with You Now and Throughout the New Year."
"And the Word became flesh, and made His dwelling among us."
A Happy and Holy Christmas, FRiends!
F
No. There has always been only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is only one Pope, and one Catholic Church. Schismatics and heretics have indeed separated from the Church, but not by following the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church remains always one, no matter how many schismatics and heretics leave her.
-A8
You just did, when you said, "It matters what Scripture says". You just appealed to your own opinion about what matters.
-A8
*Good Grief, man. You MUST be having sport with me...
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 1And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
*Really. Your errors and heretical ideas are astonishing.
*What is the point of continuing?
Then by the same respect, schismatics and heretics have separated from the Protestant Church. So there!
A8. Don't you see that such is a ridiculous point to be making? The church of Christ is those who have Him as their Savior. Man tends to organize Himself into people of like mind with Himself - but the true CHURCH is not an organization but rather is a living breathing organism. It's the people of God. That includes Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and yes - even a few Mormons (if that last one needs clarifying I will clarify but suffice it to say it would be dependent upon whether they believe what they are taught or whether they are in that institution for other reason).
And you didn't answer my question. To what do you appeal?
No, there is no "Protestant Church". There are only thousands of Protestant denominations and individuals, and they all started after 1517 AD. The Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD by Christ Himself.
The church of Christ is those who have Him as their Savior.
Indeed. But Christ's one and only Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
. Man tends to organize Himself into people of like mind with Himself - but the true CHURCH is not an organization
That's gnosticism.
but rather is a living breathing organism.
Yes! Do you think an organism is just a scattered collection or heap of individuals?? No. It is an organization, indeed the epitome of organization.
-A8
Because I am in the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". I appeal to the Church.
-A8
Excellent point. The literal lineage was through Mary. Everyone knew what "seed" meant back then, so I see no reason why God couldn't have delivered exactly as He said it would happen.
How do you know you have correctly interpreted the views of the church?
Absolutely correct. God could have incarnated Christ without the use of Mary at all. He created Adam without the use of human agency. However, in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled, He came through Mary. It was a sign to all that He was who he said he was.
The testimony of the Church.
And, NO. That is NOT Gnosticism.
Yes it is. It denies the material aspect of the Church, making its unity *merely* spiritual, something far inferior to the unity which Christ's prays in John 17 that His disciples would have.
Grow up.
That's an ad hominem.
As an organism, we are part of Christ's body. Christ's body is NOT an organization but an organism.
You are assuming that an organism cannot be an organization. That's a false assumption. Christ founded a Church, with a hiearchical authority structure: Apostles, and bishops, presbyters, and deacons.
Otherwise, you are saying Christ allowed his body to be polluted by all of the SSOEAs throughout history. Popes with illegitimate children. Priests having sex with children. Popes having orgies in the vatican. Anti-popes.
This is just as true if the body of Christ is an organism. When believers (especially those in authority) do evil, they bring shame and pollution into the body of Christ. That requires repentence and confession and reparation. But it does not destroy Christ's body; the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ's Church.
The church of Christ is ALL BELIEVERS. Regardless if they are in a Catholic church structure, Baptist, Methodist, Presybterian. If one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, then one is a part of His body.
That is true, but as I said already, Christ's Church subsists in the Catholic Church. In other words, baptized Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians, etc. are in fact (whether they know it or not) Catholics who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. By their [Trinitarian] baptism they are brought into [incomplete] communion with the Catholic Church.
-A8
I ask my priest.
-A8
How do you know that you have interpreted your priest's words correctly?
The last time I did this with my priest, I repeated back to him my understanding of what he was saying, and I asked him if I had it right. He said "yes", and shook his head up and down.
-A8
How do you know he had it right?
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.