Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

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/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: TomSmedley
Good Bye, Sir.

Good luck explaining these posts to Mary's Son during the time of your Private Judgement

361 posted on 12/06/2006 9:19:06 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: alnick

But of course. A superstition is a metaphysical belief not supported by observable fact. Sola Scriptura qualifies.


362 posted on 12/06/2006 9:20:34 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg

It says "she gave birth to a Son"

She either did or didn't, and that phrase means something. It is not an argument from silence for words to have their normal meanings.

Allowing words to mean whatever one wants is what would be illogical.


363 posted on 12/06/2006 9:21:42 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Good luck explaining these posts to Mary's Son during the time of your Private Judgement

The Eternal Second Person of the Trinity, in glory, can still be intimidated by a human woman. And the Mary of Catholic mythology is not a goddess. OK, I got it.

364 posted on 12/06/2006 9:22:23 AM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan

His conception is different because the text says it is different.

His death is the same because the text says he was dead.

His birth was the same because the text says that "she gave birth," and as blue-duncan has so ably pointed out, her bleeding afterward made her unclean.

Now, we either use the text or we throw it out.


365 posted on 12/06/2006 9:24:43 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

He is not separate from His divinity, but He emptied himself of it. Philippians 1, I think.


366 posted on 12/06/2006 9:26:09 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; Nihil Obstat; Campion
Her having conceived seed, and born a man child, by the Law, rendered her impure and unclean.

Not at all. The Levitical law that you quote did not *make* a woman unclean at birth. The Levitical law was for the purpose of purifying what was unclean. In other words, the Law assumes that the woman would be unclean. And in ordinary cases the woman is *indeed* ceremonial unclean in such circumstances. But the law does not say that every birth (whether male or female) of a woman *necessarily* makes her unclean. The law is not ruling out the possibility of a divine miracle that prevent a woman from being made ceremonially unclean upon the birth of a male child. That's where you are making your mistake. You are assuming that the Levitical law in question makes it impossible for God to miraculously prevent a woman from being made ceremonially unclean upon giving birth to a male child. But you are not justified in limiting the omnipotence of God in this way.

-A8

367 posted on 12/06/2006 9:32:57 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
If you study how the Canon was formed and recognized, you will find that the RCC only recognized the Canon after the fact. The Holy Spirit clearly was in control.

Ah, I see. The Holy Spirit was in control of the formation fo the Canon, but the rest of the activities of the Church and the beliefs as enumerated and defined in the Eccumenical Councils--well, that stuff was all earthly politics. No doubt, you believe that the only reason the Holy Spirit controlled the creation of the Canon under the auspices of the evil Catholic Church was so that it would be ready and waiting for when the TRUE believers came along 1,200 years later and set everything right.

Am I close?
368 posted on 12/06/2006 9:33:23 AM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It says "she gave birth to a Son"

I agree. But the question on the table was whether "Christ's human birth was accomplished exactly like yours and mine was accomplished."

I am aware of the "bait and switch" fallacy xzins, and I generally don't fall for it.

-A8

369 posted on 12/06/2006 9:34:22 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
Oh, dear. When people start invoking alternate deities on my behalf, I get a little nervous!

If I had posted some of the things that you have, I'd be nervous too. Just from personal experience, I tend to get angry when someone bad-mouths my mother. I can only imagine how the Pantocrator feels about it...
370 posted on 12/06/2006 9:35:55 AM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
Oh, dear. When people start invoking alternate deities on my behalf, I get a little nervous!

If I had posted some of the things that you have, I'd be nervous too. Just from personal experience, I tend to get angry when someone bad-mouths my mother. I can only imagine how the Pantocrator feels about it...
371 posted on 12/06/2006 9:36:02 AM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
See my post 367.

-A8

372 posted on 12/06/2006 9:36:27 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: annalex; blue-duncan; HarleyD; xzins; Forest Keeper; wmfights; TomSmedley; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; ..
You may infer that she also experienced the pains of chidlbirth, although that is not stated int he scripture. None of that points to personal sin, -- that is sin committed by the will of the sinner, -- or to subsequent sexual activity.

We are told that all men sin, and nothing in Scripture, absolutely nothing, exempts Mary from the rest of the human race. She needed as savior as much as you and I.

The latter part of your statement, "or to subsequent sexual activity," points to the reason so many RCs have so much guilt and anger and confusion over God's gift of a healthy, marriage-sanctified sexuality.

373 posted on 12/06/2006 9:38:46 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: annalex; blue-duncan
Blessed Virgin Mary required our Savior like the rest of us. This is the Catholic teaching.

This is not what other RCs have argued. Why did Mary need a savior if you assert she was sinless?

374 posted on 12/06/2006 9:40:14 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I think the director took some pains to emphasize the fact that she was just an ordinary but virtuous girl before the Angel came to her.

Amen.

375 posted on 12/06/2006 9:41:21 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
Just because she had to go through the purification rites does not entail that she was not the immaculate Mother of God.

There is nothing in Scripture that tells us Mary was "immaculate." It's a dangerous fiction.

376 posted on 12/06/2006 9:43:50 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; blue-duncan; Forest Keeper; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
William, I think we had a similar conversation back on the Luther & Erasmus thread.

Blue, you're at the top of your game on this thread. Learned a bit from you here.

While I don't think it can be denied that the early church held to Mary's perpetual virginity, that's just narrative as tradition, Tradition as narrative. It's the story the early Christians held to which probably was influenced by their intense persecution, coupled with near exponential absorption of converts who brought their past gods and goddesses with them. And once the narrative took root, to contradict it was to become an infidel. Most likely because of persecution and the need to stick together.

Men, fallible men, ran the church, decided what was orthodox, what was not. These men had philosophical predilections and blind spots, they had tastes and held to their own aesthetic, had the human disposition to be attracted to power. They were not immune to those things that all men wrestle with.

There will never be a historical search for Mary as there has always been for Jesus because Jesus is the Redeemer. Mary is NOT insignificant, far from it, but her significance is that she is in the upper echelon of those chosen by God among humans to bring His Will to fruition, as were blessed Moses and Abraham and David. Mary's Magnificat is one of the most beautiful prayers ever, harkening to the Psalms.

All the speculation about the Ark, the New Eve, is pure speculation. And it is remarkable that there is no Scriptural reference to her sinlessness, to say nothing of her being the mediatrix of all graces or the neck of the Body of Christ, etc. in any of the Gospels. Surely, if we were meant to invoke her as the ultimate entreaty to her Son, there would be some reference to it. You'd see it in the writings of Sts. Peter and Paul, but all you see in their writings is the preaching of Christ Crucified. The continual running to the Cross.

Herman Sasse wrote a piece back in the 50s concerning the deification of man via Mary and her state of perfection. He writes the following, and the rest is here for those interested.

The veneration of Mary at its very deepest essence, is finally the deification of man. In it man, who can not bear it that God alone, God's Son become man alone, is his Redeemer, thus places himself as his own co-redeemer. What this means and whence it leads is illustrated by the history of one of the most celebrated Marian churches of the west - the pope himself gives us this indication when he includes the temples dedicated to Mary in his proofs from tradition. In the place of an ancient pagan holy place - similarly in Rome the Santa Maria sopra Minerva - was raised in Paris the Cathedral Nostrae Dominae. In it Thomas Aquinas was promoted to Magister. In it the great teachers of scholasticism prayed and preached, who taught that amazing Catholic synthesis of nature and grace, reason and revelation, and human preparation for the reception of grace and divine redemption, that cooperation of the human will with divine grace, for which the Holy Virgin is the great paradigm. Is it an accident that in the same Church of Notre Dame, during the French Revolution, that religion was evidenced which since then has become the sharpest opponent of the Christian faith and a substitute for the faith of their fathers for many millions of men throughout the world: belief in man and his reason. At that time the Temple of Reason was raised up in the old Marian church, and in it was enthroned a not so holy "maiden" of the Parisian opera, as the "Goddess of Reason," and she let herself be marveled at in the speech for the occasion as a "Masterwork of nature." Did this fearful scene perhaps have a deeper meaning? Did it not demonstrate what perverse path man comes to when man is placed beside God, reason next to revelation, nature next to grace. On the day reason ejects revelation from the temple, man places himself on the throne of God and reveals, after he has rejected grace, his true nature. This is all possible in a Marian church. These possibilities lie dormant in the Church of Christ, and become reality when Christianity forgets that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even and angel. Verbum solum habemus. We will hold to the Word of God.

Catholicism, for whatever reason was not able or willing to absorb the venerable and beautiful understanding of human sexuality that the Jewish patriarchs bequeathed us. I finally began reading the Song of Solomon and it is breathtakingly beautiful. Catholicism's view of sexuality and womanhood is more akin to Islam's, with Catholicism's being "off" (to put it kindly), and Islam's being extremely disturbed. IMO, Islam and Catholicism's nexus commences with this and proceeds to the application of it to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Luke 11:27 And it was done, when he had said these things, a woman of the company raised [up] her voice, and said to him, Blessed be the womb that bare thee, and blessed be the teats that thou hast sucked.
28 And he said, But yea blessed be they [And he said, Rather, blessed be they], that hear the word of God, and keep it.

The speculation of the New Ark and the New Eve does not comport with Luke's Scripture, and Luke was Mary's greatest Gospel fan.

377 posted on 12/06/2006 9:43:59 AM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: annalex
A superstition is a metaphysical belief not supported by observable fact.

By that definition, not only sola Scriptura but other Christian doctrines, as well as those specific to Catholicism or Reformation theology are superstitions. Original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the the priesthood of the believer are as superstitious as sola Scriptura, For that matter, so are doctrines found in all religions.

378 posted on 12/06/2006 9:44:35 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: xzins; kosta50
Leo, Serm. 23, 1: The conception was by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin; who, as she conceived in perfect chastity, in like manner brought forth her Son.

Pseudo-Aug., in App. s. 123: He, who by a touch could heal the severed limbs of others, how much more could He, in His own birth, preserve whole that which He found whole? In this parturition, soundness of the Mother’s body was rather strengthened than weakened, and her virginity rather confirmed than lost.

379 posted on 12/06/2006 9:45:15 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
There is nothing in Scripture that tells us Mary was "immaculate." It's a dangerous fiction.

So you admit that Luther, too, was teaching fiction then? He believed in the Immaculate Conception, after all...
380 posted on 12/06/2006 9:45:28 AM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson