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/
Thank you Kolkotronis. And to you and yours (In January, right?)
"This also violates Sola Scriptura. Look at verse 47, "In the presence of all the people, she told..." Then, Jesus says to her "Daughter ...". Presumably, this was also in the presence of all the people. Simple common sense. With such a public admission, surely this incredible circumstance would have been written about by others. More common sense. Further, having a child out of wedlock would have ruined Jesus' status as sinless, and also would have made Him a liar in His teachings. Doing no work at all, Sola Scriptura immediately throws ALL of this out the window."
Oh, I don't know. That which is common sense and common understanding today may well not have been common sense and common understanding then. As a matter of fact, the argument was that far from being illegitimate, the children of Christ were born of His marriage to Mary Magdelen, or so the Gnostic Gospels would have us believe. But of course, a group of Greek speaking bishops took care of the Gnostic Gospels by measuring what they said against the Holy Tradition of The Church and finding them wanting; they didn't employ sola scriptura or "common sense", FK. Common sense didn't give you the scriptures which you interpret through a common sense application of sola scriptura, Holy tradition wielding Greek bishops did! :)
"Thank you Kolkotronis. And to you and yours (In January, right?)"
Nope, December 25 among the Greeks is the same day as it is among the Americans. Its the Slavs who are calendar challenged. :)
What are you talking about? That never happens.
Gotcha. I knew Russian Orthodox celebrated in January, but I thought some Greeks wouldn't go for the Julian Calendar. Thanks for the clarification.
I peeked into some of your back-and-forth: quite interesting, and rather edifying to hear the respectful tone of voice. That's so welcome in this sharkfight known as FReeper Religious Dialog.
A Merry Christmas to you and to all!
"quite interesting, and rather edifying"
Well, A and I are edifying kind of guys!
A Blessed Nativity Feast to you, Don-o and the rest of your tribe!
Ah, see, we are so close, brother! I recited Psalm 51 Friday morning, as is custom of the Divine Liturgy of the Hours in the West! Of course, Friday is a day of penance for us.
Regards
You may believe what you will, but the mainstream Protestant interpretation (I realize I am generalizing - not all Protestants hold to your idea of the totally corrupt man) is incorrect on Romans 3. One doesn't need to be a Catholic to figure that out. I have already detailed my area of disagreement.
As to man requiring the Holy Spirit, I do not believe I said man could EVER save Himself. There is no need for the false dichotomy - in other words, God saves man, but that does not exclude man. One does not have to be dead to require God's salvation.
There is no point in posting Scriptures on this issue - because there are dozens and dozens of them that tell of men being righteous (as a result of God, of course). I will take your word that you claim to be familiar with Scriptures and can find these yourself.
Merry Christmas
I would tend to agree with that. I think that the idea that Mary was instantly aware of her fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah is an interesting hypothesis that has no scriptural support: the Luke's chapter does describe her mental state, and it describes it as confusion rather than an "aha moment". Later, she is described not quite understanding her Son as He stays in the Temple. The Church does not call this ideas wrong, but it is but a hypothesis, and it seems at odds at least with the above episodes.
The Protoevangdlium is not scripture, but it is evidence of the Jewish culture. If the notion of a custodial marriage were as foreign ro the 1c Jews as it is to us, it would not have been copied through, considered for canonization and generally treated as reliable before veneration of Mary became wide spread.
I agree that perpetual virginity is not in the scripture wih nearly the same lucidity as the Trinity; the comparison was with the lack of elaboration on Mary's seemingly illogical response in Luke 1:34, and similar lack of elaboration on some finer trinitarian aspects, which caused the great trinitarian heresies of the Early Church and even today.
You don;t have to believe a word of it; all that matters is that it explaines Luke 1:34 logically by providing a reference to the Jewish culture of the time.
"Forgery" is a strong word. The attribution to St. James is probably inaccurate, but such attributions were nevertheless common at the time. It is likely that it reflected the tranditional teaching on Mary and her family, possibly admixing some legendary stuff. It originated, arguably, in 2 c.
Exactly so, and this is my attitude about it as well. I quoted it in response to Blogger's question, why anyone would marry a girl he did not intend to have sex with. I was fully aware that the next thing Blogger would do is forget his own question and thump the table with allegations of forgery.
LOL!!!
In his human nature, of course! We know that He "took on" human nature using Mary's "flesh." That's all we know. God did not need to be a demigod "zygote" in order to take on human nature, nor is there any evidence that He "toucher" Mary's egg.
So, what were Adam and Eve to God? Were they not His creation, His tools, to use as He sees fit? Is it "demeaning" to be a "suitable vessel" for a woman, singled out by Nog Himself, to carry Incarnate God in the form of a Child? Is it "demeaning" that God uses us as He sees fit, even as "immaculate incubators", if you will?
And she carried the Child to term and gave birth to Him, and as such she is truly the Theotokos, the bearer of God, as the Church correctly calls her, and He, God, is her Child, and she His Mother. The only begotten of Father, and God, and the only-begotten of Mary, and as such her Son, by His will and miracle. Which part do you find "offensive" in all this?
With regards to his lineage, Jesus was a Jew, because His Mother was a Jew, and as such both were related to Abraham, as all mankind is related to Adam and Eve, even to Abraham, through our humanity. For, as different and varied as we may be, each and every one of us is by nature, i.e. essence, human and as such related to each other.
Just as we cannot share human and animal nature, we cannot share divine and human nature. Jesus did not "fuse" by some genetic acrobatics of human haploids and divine genetics into a demigod. Incarnation is not mixing, and fusing, but joining, seamlessly, without confusion and mixing as the Ecumencial Council declares. It is God's Mystery and a true miracle. Not genetics.
He used the flesh of what you derogatively call "immaculate incubator" to become man (i.e. incarnation), unlike any other child. Zygotes are not "incarnated" spirits, P-Marlowe. Our spirits do not pre-exist us in flesh, as Gnostic heresy teaches. To speak of Mary's pregnancy as something "natural;" or even "logical" is not just heresy, but outright fantasy as I said before, and I am apalled that some in the Protestant community would even consider such "possibilities."
Good boy! :)
But our numbering is not the same as yours.
How so? The Spirit added the equivalent of male human DNA to join with Mary's egg so that she "conceived". No sex was involved. How is this inconsistent with your set-up?
The only way that Christ could have ended up with both sets of Mary's DNA signature is by using her existing flesh (or bone or hair, or any part of her body (a product of her mothers' and her father's DNA, and not her egg).
I agree. I'm not saying that I think that Jesus was some kind of weird male clone of Mary. He wasn't. I think He was FULLY human which means having the "normal" DNA structure, which was supplied by both Mary and the Spirit. My opinion is that it was God's version of some sort of supernatural artificial insemination.
Knowing all this, insisting on His birth being "natural" is just plain naïve, in sharp contrast to His appearance and incarnation in Mary's body.
You appear to hold the view that "Jesus the fetus" (sounds like a name for a Dave Barry rock band :) just popped into Mary's womb independent of any biological interaction with any part of Mary at all. That could be correct. I don't think the scriptures are clear enough for me to declare my view as a fact. However, as I have elsewhere posted, I think there is some scripture that supports my scenario and does allow for the pregnancy and birth to have been "normal". Given the importance of literal blood lines to the Jews of the time, how do you deal with the lineage requirement?
I know a boy who died today, who was homozygous recessive for a certain gene. He was 17 years old. In spite of his condition, he was fully human, even though his genetic defect did not allow him fully to express his human nature. (Say a pray for him and his family, if you would; he is with the angels and saints now, and happier than he has been in a long, long time.)
It is reductionistic to equate human nature with a having a certain set of genes or chromosomes. That is why all this speculation about Jesus's DNA is silly. Jesus took his human nature from Mary. That's all we know. From that, we can deduce nothing about the DNA of Jesus. Human nature per se is at a deeper ontological level than the information and arrangement of DNA, even though human nature is manifested in that information and arrangement. Human nature is not *reducible* to that information and arrangement.
-A8
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.