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/
If people bowed down to it and pray to the thing it represents, it would be.
They're not "worshiping" a saint but "venerating" a saint. So I've been told.
There's nothing wrong with statues in the temple either. God commanded it in the old testament.
So performers worship their crowds then?
Yes, but why are there any statues in the church at all? This IS NOT a Catholic church.
"At which point the West has gone from 1 church into 20,000+."
Kind of reminds you of the early church rather than Babel;
Acts 2:6-11, "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."
Genesis 11:6, "And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Putting one's hand on their heart and then pledging ALLEGIANCE to the Flag and the Republic is not objectionable to you, but asking the Blessed Virgin and the other saints to pray for us is?
Hi annalex! I think that's exactly what A-G was saying.
I imagine that when Christ prays for our unity, His prayer is not a prayer that we should all be exactly the same. To resort to an analogy: Different parts of the human body have different functions, etc., but all parts/functions are necessary to the well-being of the total living body (which in this case analogizes to the Body of Christ).
And so the answer to St. Paul's question, "Is Christ divided?" is: NO. Not any more than a brain is "divided" from the heart, or a kidney, or a lung, or the liver or pancreas, etc., etc. All are necessary for the vital functioning of the living whole.
Just a thought -- my two cents, FWIW. Thanks for the ping, annalex!
The Church as a body typology did not mean two heads. Diversity of pieties and practices is fine. Diversity of fundamental theology is not good.
Nothing about professed Christians advocating abortion, gay marriage, gay leaders, etc brings to mind the early church.
Well stated.
1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
"Belay on!"
"ON belay!"
"Climbing!"
"Climb!"
"In the name of the Father, ......"
Notice Paul says in "as in all churches of the saints". He does not say in THE church but in ALL churches, plural.
PLEASE don't ask me for a source.
How about Bauer Ardnt & Gingrich, Gesenius and Kautzsch and, uh, Blass Debrunner?
When St Paul says all churches he means all parishes. All such gatherings. Not alternative jurisdictions which profess wildly unChristian things. Paul was clear to be mindful of such wolves.
However, the Great Scism was based on primarily one, albeit major, point of contention -- the primacy of the Pope. The Orthodox did not change the mass or seek to alter scripture in any way. In contrast, the Reformation not only abandoned many major doctrines, they invented new ones.
That's a worth while distinction.
(Though I'd footnote it that the filioque could be considered a slight change in doctrine. Certainly that's one of the matters currently considered by the joint orthodox-Catholic commision)
Still that's nothing like saying 'Dont baptise infants' or 'your saved by believing in written words alone'.
Christ founded and built His Church (singular) on Peter's Confession. When Paul wrote of churches in the plural he was referring to parishes or in today's world, individual parish churches (obviously in Paul's time, it was not possible for the parish to have Mass in the same location every week).
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.