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/
My understanding is that there's less polyester in Orthodoxy.
Is the reading comprehension comment the one that merited this rebuke? Because I believe I have been quite patient with Kawaii's attacks on my belief system under the guise of attacking "protestantism." Just trying to determine the rules so I don't step over them again.
Just conduct such a one, if only for an example - if such a thing were permitted - into the mansions on high, and he will be bored there
LOL.
The same assertion can be made without "making it personal" - e.g. evidently something was missed.
I'm stiffnecked on the guideline "discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal" simply because "making it personal" is usually the first offense in a flame war.
I cannot, however, keep posters from "taking it personally." We just do the best we can.
Our POV is that you can get clear water from rusty pipes, and that Sinai (or Horeb) was, when compared to other mountains, not very distinguished or noble. Positively scruffy, viewed in certain lights.
If I hadn't thought back in my Protestant days that you could get clear water from rusty pipes, I never would have had the nerve to get into a pulpit.
The Rapture is a belief held by a small minority of Protestants. But it's not unlike RCs to paint all Protestants with the same brush.
Even still, eschatology is not a salvation issue. Not on the order of, say...bowing down to the stock of a tree or praying to dead people or sacrificing Christ anew with every Lord's Supper.
Very well. I will try not to "make it personal" in the future and will ignore Kawaii's assertions that the doctrine of the Rapture is "Protestant Lunacy" and a "Protestant Joke". He ended up answering the question in the end with his comment as to believing what his church says; though the answer I was looking for dealt with whether he believes what Scripture says. I respect your right to inforce the rules as you see fit and will retire from this inquiry now.
"Labels do not matter to me"
Beg to differ, beg to differ! I have you labeled as one of the brightest stars in the heavens. So bright that when I read your posts I have to put on my sunglasses for the wisdom just blinds the naked eye. How's that for the end of the day?
Kawaii answered your question fully and exhaustively in the first part of 5,127. It is a lengthy answer, but the question you posed deserved one.
The Second Coming of Christ will signal a new life in glory for the "blessed of the Father", who will "possess the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world". The living and the dead will come together and will be with Christ forever. That is the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 4.
The rapture theology takes off from that scriptural fact in some bizarre direction, as the article Kawaii posted explains.
Actually, the timing of the Rapture is more the issue I believe. Most Protestants believe in the Rapture (from the Latin Rapturo, meaning to "catch up") in that they believe Christ will return to be joined together with His bride. She will meet him in the air. Some believe that this has somehow already occurred. Some believe it will occur prior to the period known as the Tribulation. Some believe it will be prior to the wrath of God being poured out. Some believe it will be at the end of the Tribulation. And some people don't see a literal 1000 year reign yet believe in the return of Christ. Some may even allegorize the catching up. That is why I emphasized that I wasn't discussing timing. I just wanted to know if he believed that Christians would be gathered together to meet Christ in the air. His answer was that he believed whatever his church taught and didn't have to interpret Scripture himself. This answer was received after a monster picture was posted from someone in the Protestant camp who ignorred Scriptures admonitions about nobody knowing the day nor the hour. This same picture was represented as Protestant belief and a joke made up by Protestants. But as you say, it is a secondary doctrine.
I'm sure it's splitting hairs, but that particular quote was put up by someone who is NOT RC, I believe. Any stick will do.
Kawaii posted an article. I asked Kawaii what he/she believed. I did not ask what a specific newsletter said. If you asked me a question, what do you think the price of gas will be tomorrow and I go back and find an article written by someone else that has that person's prediction of what the price of gas is going to be - have I really answered your question. Kawaii answered the question when he said he believes whatever his church teaches. This is a dangerous thing in and of itself, but at least it was an answer.
It's a distinction that defines our differences.
Kneel to none but Christ.
He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:19-20"And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
"The Rapture is a belief held by a small minority of Protestants"
Yes, but it is held by a large part of the Baptists and Pentecostals.
That still doesn't explain the very simple fact that the statues (including one of a man praying) in Castle Church in Wittenberg were either placed there by Lutherans or were seen as acceptable by Luther and allowed to stay. Whether or not anyone prays before them (as opposed to them) is a moot point, in the minds of many here, these are idols. Flowers adorn the tombs of Luther and his wife (who looks a lot like a nun).
Say whatever you want, but don't try to say that what you think is consistent with the beliefs of Martin Luther because the evidence clearly shows otherwise.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." -- 2 Timothy 4:2-4"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
:)
This distinction is not valid. Credo unam sanctam catolicam ecclesiam. The article explained what the Church believes. As Catholic I would perhaps nuance the "tollhouses" a bit differently, but other than that, there you have it.
Now I am confused. I post articles from certain websites and you say that you only care what the church teaches. Now Kawaii posts a miscellaneous article from a newsletter and it equates to Kawaii's own personal beliefs on the subject. Gee. This is certainly an interesting way of looking at things. It is making me dizzy.
(There's even Orthodox who nuance that a bit differently actually... :)
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.