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/
Yup. I know. My Church wrote them for you to read. You think you are showing me something new?
The "Catena Aurea," compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas has the very statements you are looking for. I posted a few earlier
There is little point in discussing the teaching of the Church with someone who does not have faith in them. I spare myself the useless exercise. It is indeed true that the scripture does not address the perpetual virginity of Mary other than by inference.
There was no law. John Baptized with water for repentance and preached that those Baptized should produce fruit in the spirit of repentance. Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousness. John had already said that the one who would come would Baptize with the Holy Spirit. Jesus established "the law" when He was Baptized.
Notice the testimony of the Father at that point. The Holy Spirit recognized Himself. Jesus' decision to be Baptized by John shows that Baptism does not imply one has sinned at all, nor does producing fruit in the spirit of repentance. From that point, Baptism was established.
I should have known. Him or Saint Anselm should have been my guess.
This episode rather proves that we don't pray to statues just like we don't pray to watermarks.
There is no inference. As blue-duncan and forest keeper pointed out there is every evidence to disagree with this teaching. But, to paraphrase your statement, there is little point in discussing the teaching of the scriptures with someone who ...
They pointed out that inferences can also be drawn their way. This is why, among other things, Sola Scriptura is a dangerous superstition.
I asked several RC friends this yesterday and to a one they had never heard of Mary's "intact, physical" virginity after the birth of Christ.
It would be interesting to see from where you're getting this and how recently it was determined.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.
Transsubstantiation is taught by the Catholic Church and is treated as compatible with the Orthodox teaching, and as far as I know with all other Churches (pre-Chalcedon) that have a valid apostolic succession. This is therefore a part of the teaching as commanded by Christ in his Great Commission to the apostles, which is a scriptural fact. The other teachings do not have similar historical or scriptural continuity.
Note that the appeal here is not to antiquity as such, although we certainly have that in this case, but to validity of the teaching commission.
It's been fascinating these past few years to read here how RCs deny the stain of original sin. It wasn't always that way.
Whether it is Noah or Jacob or Job or John or Paul or you or me or our infant children, all righteousness is the righteousness of Christ.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." -- Galatians 2:20
As to the physiological virginity, references were made on this thread to St. Thomas Aquinas; naturally it is not likely something anyone was able to examine. I never researched that question and have no handy answer. It is a post-apostolic doctrine, I believe. It would be equally fine by me if it were taught since yesterday, or not taught at all.
It is however notable that Mary was called the Virgin since pretty much her days on earth, so we can be sure of her social virginity as a part of the Sacred Tradition. That was an observable lifestyle, at least after passing of St. Joseph.
Most Catholics do not spend a lot of time pondering such arcana, unless they have the mind to debate the Protestants. The perpetual social virginity is taught by the Church and that, I trust, most Catholics recognize. The physiological virginity as well as the freedom from birth pain is not a dogma of the Church, so most are not sure what to think about it.
Where did I do that?
There is original sin and personal sin. They are very distinct. The former does not condemn to hell, because it is not committed with the cooperation of the will. Both are blotted by the sacrifice of the Cross, which worked in reverse time sequence for the Old Testament righteous and for Mary. The passages "all have sinned" in Romans have a specific context; the one in chapter 3 I believe refers to the general state of man before the Cross and the one in chapter 5 to original sin, and neither needs to be read as allowing no exception. The references to righteousness in the Old Testament -- at least these I had in mind -- refer to absence of personal sin, but not of original sin.
None of that is a new teaching.
Joe Namath is still referred to as a quarterback but I don't see him perpetually suiting up on Sundays.
This is a new one to me. I have never heard this before. Wow!
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.