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/
Does this abrogate or necessarily include applying Sola Scriptura?
Don't try claiming next time that you belong to the same Church with us, then. This being said, I doubt that you know what the Catholic teaching on grace is.
Yeah, right. The woman giving birth to her son named Christ cannot be Mary. What a thought.
This is not the scripture, this is your inference. I have mine, and mine are consonant with the historical belief of my Church.
Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Colossians 1
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
Romans 8:16
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
thanks. Same questions for you also..
Good for you. And yes, it is Scripture. Like it or not.
I do not make such a claim.
So, your view is that if one believes those four verses one "Believes in Him and is not condemned," correct?
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, gentleness, meakness, faith....
That is not debatable. Papacy as we know it today developed as heresies began to develop. It is true that the prominence of St. Peter clear in the New Testament does not directly translate to the papacy as we have it today. But I am very happy we have it because of the heretics like you. In the West we need a strong papacy. Less so in the East.
The original dispute with WmFights was whether the early Church was hierarchical, and both historical and scriptural evidence for that is plentiful.
In its context, yes. Scripture is not to be cherry picked. Believing in Christ entails believing in Him for who He is. Lord and Savior. The demons have intellectual belief, but do not believe in Him as Savior and Lord. Such faith comes through the Word of God by the Spirit of God.
Thanks. I appreciate your reply very much.
But you know I'm gonna remind that Van Impe, Copeland, and countless others are gonna agree with you and yet teach something quite different.
Seriously, what now?
Naw. We have a choice. God is generous. He doesn't make little robots who say "Lord, Lord..."
Only because the verses you posted pointed to the possibility of additional children and were in support of the notion that Mary sinned. If you did not mean to imply it, good, and thank you for clarifying.
IIRC, it is the Roman Catholic position that Mary could not have given birth to more children because she remained virginal, thus implying that marital relations with her husband, Joseph, would be precluded somehow because of Mary's perpetual "unblemished" state.
No. The Catholic (Roman and otherwise) position is that Mary remained virginal because she did, and we know that primarily from the Tradition. If she were to have intimate relations with St. Joseph that would not have been a sin at all, as mariatal sex in general has nothing to do with sin. The fact that many uneducated Catholic believe the strangest things and then leave the Church over them is quite sad, but this is why we have these threads, don't we?
JVI, maybe. Copeland and Hinn are false prophets. I would not include them with orthodox Christianity.
He was an immoral man, but his handling of the Church, theologically, was not. What he received from God is merciful and just. That much we can be certain of, for God is always merciful and just. It's not up to us to judge others.
Well, they would disagree. And I think you'd include thousands of Orthodox Catholics in your false prophets.
So what now? If someone asks, "What is the Christian teaching?" What do you say?
It's "What I believe."
Why should they believe you?
She still does. (I like this "institution", reminds me of "the Zionist entity" euphemisms). Sex has unitive and procreative aspects and if one is purposely excluded, the sexual union becomes deviant and therefore sinful. This does not mean that couples should abstain from sex unless they purposely do it in order to get pregnant, but it does mean that any form of contraception (chemical, barrier, or intentionally incomplete intercourse) is sinful. It is a sin against the First Commandment. Likewise a sexual behavior that degrades one partner is sinful even if pregnancy may result from it, as it disrupts the unitive nature of marital sex. It becomes a sin against the commandment to love one another, and, as Christ explains (Mt 5:21f), violates the commandment not to kill.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for instruction in righteousness.
It matters not if I believe it as far as whether or not it is true.
It matters that God said it.
I do not say "What I believe." I say, "What Scripture says." The authority is higher than man that I point to. It is circular reasoning, I admit. I believe Scripture because Scripture says it is believable. But so is your reasoning "I believe that the Roman Catholic church is God's instrument of interpretation because that's what the Roman Catholic Church teaches."
Where church teaching seems to contradict Scripture, you go with church teaching on the subject as well as its interpretation of that Scripture.
I choose to believe Scripture over non-normative interpretations. My faith is in God, period. You have faith both in God, but specifically in the church for getting it right. Therein is the difference.
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.